Due Process Violation!
Due Process Violation!
The issues I bring to your attention are with Constitutional principles that effected procedural fairness. I am not speaking on traditional concerns of my innocence or guilt, but the process in which it was determined. What I am speaking on in particular is the importance that comes with the opportunity to procedurally challenge the outcome of innocence or guilt. Coupled with the right to vote, those who wrote our Constitution considered the rights to trial by jury "the heart and lungs, the mainspring, and the center wheel" of our liberties, and without which "the body of due process of law" must expire. See: Letter from Clarendon to W. Pym (Jan.27, 1766), in 1 Papers of John Adams 169(R. Taylor ed 1977); J. Adams Diary Entry( Feb.12, 1771), in = Diary & Autobiography of John Adams 3 (L. Butterfield ed. 1961); see also 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution § 1779, pp.540-541 (4th ed 1873). Toward that end, the Framers adopted the Sixth Amendment's promise that "in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial, by an impartial jury." Impartial jury, in the Fifth Amendment they added that no one may be deprived of liberty without "due process of law." Due process of law, together these two pillars of the Bill of Rights ensure that the government must prove to a (impartial) jury every criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and this ancient rule that has "extended down centuries." See: Appendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 477, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000). Primarily, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has adopted the United States Supreme Court decision which states, "An impartial jury is no doubt a jury selection of the defendant's peers."
With that being said, I was convicted on hearsay evidence/ testimony by an all white jury, which constitutionally is deemed unconstitutional by all courts that are jurisdictionally able to correct the issues I bring before you. Secondly, the State of Pennsylvania is unique because it’s a hearsay state that demonstrates the ills of mass incarceration through allowing hearsay testimonies, and not actual evidence. For example, I was in a relationship with a woman by the name Vernell Jones. On the surface, she seemed like a good person, but underneath she was mentally unstable and violent. Ms. Jones committed two unspeakable crimes one was attempted murder, and the other was a murder against individuals that only she was familiar with. All evidence was linked to Ms. Jones along with her confession. Ms. Jones implicated and transferred the murder charge onto me without any linkage to the act just a deal to reduce her sentence, and her sole testimony. And, once those accusations fell under scrutiny, Ms. Jones shifted these allegations into a conspiracy theory that I forced and influenced her to commit this murder. These lies surfaced when I ended the relationship months later. As stated, we are not speaking on innocence or guilt, and we are speaking on procedural fairness. The Batson decision made it clear that an all white jury is facially unconstitutional. Also, in Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S. Ct. 1173, 3 L. Ed 2d 1217 (1959), the United States Supreme Court confirmed the principle that a "State may not knowingly use false evidence, including false testimony, to obtain a tainted conviction." Her story changed the first accusation that Ms. Jones stated with regards to the murder is "I did the murder." Then her second accusation was I influenced her to commit the murder in order for her to maintain a relationship with me. So now, we are speaking on credibility issues and impeaching testimony. Unfortunately, this impeaching testimony was considered evidence to this all white jury in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. As a result, I was convicted of two life sentences, and the real perpetrator of the murder Ms. Jones was released after completing a 17 year deal for her testimony. Note: I never had contact or problems with the law prior to Ms. Jones implicating me in this crime. I am petitioning for a new trial with fairness.