1. Ivan Eberhart is a father of five who was gainfully employed, active in his church, did not smoke, never used drugs, and had no criminal record, when he was falsely accused by Charles Bolden of selling drugs to Bolden.
2. Agents say Ivan confessed. But why would he confess to something he never did? He wouldn't and he didn't. There was no written or recorded confession and the agents claimed they lost their notes. Five witnesses, including 2 police officers came to trial and testified that Ivan was home the entire day dealing with a burglary at his mothers house, and was not out delivering drugs. The jury found him not guilty of delivering drugs.
3. The prosecutor also charged him with a conspiracy, although they had no proof of a conspiracy and in fact, the prosecutor sent a letter to the trial attorney (which the trial attorney withheld until after the conviction) admitting as much.
4. . It was only in closing arguments that the prosecutor first mentioned a conspiracy and asked the jury to convict, without presenting any evidence or witnesses. The jury convicted, but seemed confused during deliberations and asked the judge twice what a conspiracy was.
5. Three months after his conviction in 2002, Ivan Eberhart learned that a superseding indictment had been issued for Charles Bolden in 1999, which removed the name of Ivan Eberhart as Bolden's co-conspirator. Therefore, Ivan Eberhart should never have been tried on that charge.
This petition is to request an investigation into the prosecutorial misconduct that led to the conviction and 11-year sentence of Ivan Eberhart an innocent family man who was employed at the time of his arrest, was active in his church and a dedicated committed father to his children. Although he didn't deal with drugs, had never been incarcerated and had no prior arrests or convictions, he was accused by Charles Bolden of delivering cocaine to Bolden on 12/15/98 in River Oaks, Ill. Charles Bolden later recanted his testimony resulting in the Assistant U.S. Attorney not allowing Bolden to come to court & testify, but eliciting Bolden's hearsay testimony through the agents. Ivan Eberhart was acquitted of the delivery (Count 2 of the indictment) because 5 credible witnesses, including 2 police officers, came to court to testify that he was at his mother's home the entire day dealing with a burglary that occurred early that morning. Charles Bolden admitted that he only gave agents Ivan Eberhart's name because they insisted he name someone & that was the first name that came to his mind(although their report showed that they had targeted Bolden initially because he had previously admitted to "sitting on 40 kilograms of cocaine.") No witnesses or evidence was ever presented to the jury relative to the conspiracy count of which Eberhart was convicted. The AUSA violated Ivan's due process rights by presenting his theory and opinion that Ivan was guilty of conspiracy only in closing statements, therefore preventing the defense from cross-examining any of the AUSA's false statements and conjecture. The prosecutors also lied to the judge about Bolden's availability and cooperation, falsified transcripts of tapes of consensual phone call Bolden made to Eberhart in the presence of the agents (report of forensic audio expert), made false statements on the supporting affidavit, withheld exculpatory evidence including Bolden's superseding indictment that removed Ivan Eberhart's name as a co-conspirator. I humbly implore you to initiate, request or advocate for an investigation into the prosecutorial misconduct that led to this wrongful conviction , and to look into the laws that allow an innocent person to be convicted of a federal drug crime based only on the accusation of an unreliable informant attempting to provide "substantial assistance" in exchange for a lenient sentence.
Emma Young started this petition with a single signature, and now has 232 supporters. Start a petition today to change something you care about.