We Are Seeking Justice for Andre Mamon
This petition had 860 supporters
My son who was “wrongfully” convicted of first-degree murder and found guilty by a jury. On October 14, 2009 Andre was sentenced under Judge Stanley J. Sacks to 37 years for First-Degree Murder and 15 years were added for the Firearm Enhancement which came to a total of 52 years at 100%. Andre Mamon should be given a new trial or his conviction should be reversed due to the insufficiency of the evidence adduced at trial.
I ask that all “please” take the time to read this petition and the facts that Andre Mamon was “wrongfully” convicted of first-degree murder. Justice is not a wrongful conviction as many are incarcerated for wrongful convictions. I ask that you give your support after reading the facts and sign this petition. It would help our fight for Andre Mamon in such a huge way.
Andre Mamon was 19 years of age at the time of his arrest. He is now 25 years of age and has been incarcerated for 6 years. We have been fighting so hard to get Andre home. With the help and support of you such amazing people I’m quite sure something can be done to bring Andre home soon. Andre “thanks” you as well as his family “thanks” you for taking the time to read this petition as well as signing this petition. We are trying to get recognition of someone such as the Governor who has the power to help with getting Andre case looked into, or getting him a new trial, or even getting his conviction overturned. We as a whole have the power to help so please understand that your signatures are truly needed!!
The importance of this petition is obvious and clear. Andre was “wrongfully” convicted due to a flawed and one-sided justice system!! The facts will show just how flawed and one-sided this justice system is. Andre is truly innocent and that was clearly proven at trial still he was found guilty. The evidence was insufficient and wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The identification witnesses were under the influence of drugs and alcohol at the time they made their observations and their observations were contradicted by other more reliable evidence in the case.
Andre asserts and maintains that the jury verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Andre further asserts that the testimonial evidence upon which the jury relied to render its verdict was unreliable, inconsistent, contradictory and untrustworthy.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution was insufficient to prove Andre guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in that:
The testimony of witness number one, a two time convicted felon, was untrustworthy, unreliable, inconsistent and contradicted by the testimony of the other occurrence witnesses and contradicted by her grand jury testimony and written statements given to the police. She testified that 2-3 persons got out of the Kia. She testified that she saw “Dre” at the gas station incident but did not state this to anyone. She could not identify Andre in the video. She admitted to drinking and smoking marijuana on the morning of the shooting and she could not give any particularized identification of the shooter at the time of the shooting.
The testimony of witness number two was likewise untrustworthy, unreliable, inconsistent, and contradictory. Unlike her sister, she testified that she did not see Andre at the gas station prior to the shooting. She indicated the street was dark and two to four people got out the Kia. She saw a gun she ran with her sister and did not see the actual shooting. She further testified that everything happened very quickly and that she had never seen Andre before. Her only on the scene description of the shooter was that he had dark skin and wore braids. Furthermore, she testified that she had been “partying and drinking” before the shooting and was “in shock” as the incident unfolded. She was also unable to give a particularized description of the shooter or any of the other persons she saw.
The testimony of witness number three contradicted the testimony of witness number one and two in significant ways unlike witness number one and two. He testified that the principal shooter exited from the passenger side of the Kia and that the shooter ran around the vehicle and approached the victim. Though he did not see a gun he saw “sparks flying” from the shooters location. He further testified that the driver of the vehicle got out and fired shots and that the driver and passenger chased after the victim while witness number one and two ran in another direction. He indicated that the passenger had on a black skull cap while the driver had nothing on his head. He could not particularized description of passenger or driver.
Witnesses’ number one and two stated in open court that the driver got out of the Kia first and fired shots and stated that the driver was Andre. Also stated they seen him get out of the driver side and shoot the victim. Here it is witness number three the unbiased, non-felon who had not been drinking or smoking marijuana was sitting 3 car lengths behind the Kia watching everything unfold saw only one person get out the passenger’s side of the vehicle. According to him, ultimately the driver did get out the vehicle, but by that time, witness number one and witness number two had already gone into someone’s yard.
How is it that my son Andre Mamon is sitting in prison with a 52 year sentence for a crime he did not commit, off witnesses statements that were surely untrustworthy, unreliable, inconsistent and contradicted by the testimony of the other occurrence witnesses? How is it that my son is being fingered as being the driver when witness number three stated witness number one and two were not present when the driver exited the vehicle? There was a handwritten statement written but not used as evidence. The individual who wrote such statement admitted to him being the driver. Witness number two went further to state my son was dark skinned then responded to the apparent inconsistency at trial on the stand by saying that Andre was dark skinned “then”. Is that justice?
The trial court improperly added 15 years to Andre’s sentence where the enhancing factor was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The state never took the position that the 15 year enhancement applied, nor did the state request a jury instruction that included any language for the jury to determine whether Andre possessed or personally discharged a firearm. The state did say at sentencing that [she was] “aware that it is this court’s opinion that, because the evidence is that a firearm was used in the commission of the offense, which is corroborated by the medical Examiner, that an additional 15 years is appropriate”. The court asked the state if they had a copy of the case [the court] referred to? The state responded, “Ramirez, I do, but not on me, Judge”. Also when addressing the issue of the firearm enhancement the Judge stated, “if I am wrong about the (adding 15 years to the sentence), the Appellate Court will knock off the 15 year enhancement”. Is that what we call a fair trial? Is that what we call justice?
No physical or scientific evidence was introduced before the jury connecting Andre with the shooting, nor were any incriminating statements introduced, still Andre has been left to basically spend the rest of his life in prison. The fact is Andre should never have been convicted in the first place, because the two main witnesses in his case was never credible and the third witness never saw my son. But still the judge’s instructions to the jury and I will use his exact words “keep in mind jurors when deliberating that someone was murdered and someone has to pay”. The judge gave the jurors no other choice but to find my son guilty.
All the above are the facts in this case I “thank” you for taking the time to read this petition. I once again ask that you please sign this petition because your help is needed. Please join in for the “Fight for Freedom for Andre Mamon”.
Today: Wendi is counting on you
Wendi Swift needs your help with “Dick Durbin & Tammy Duckworth: We Are Seeking Justice for Andre Mamon”. Join Wendi and 859 supporters today.