This petition respectfully requests executive clemency and a full pardon for Derrick Bernard Jr. based upon substantial concerns regarding the reliability of his conviction, his actual innocence, and serious questions about the failure of justice being served in the proceedings that resulted in his life sentence. This is not a request for mercy based upon rehabilitation, hardship, or the passage of time. Rather, it is a request for review of a conviction that presents extraordinary circumstances warranting executive intervention. Executive clemency serves as an essential safeguard when confidence in a conviction has been undermined and when the ordinary legal process may be insufficient to correct a potential miscarriage of justice.

Derrick Bernard Jr. has consistently maintained his innocence. He was convicted under a prosecution theory that he solicited the murder of William Underwood through Aeeshawn Mathews while incarcerated. The State alleged that Mathews carried out the homicide at Derrick's direction, over recorded jail calls. The prosecution was allowed to endorse a never before certified "expert witness", the lead detective in the case. This person was allowed to tell the jury that common industry terms like, "tours, shows, and concerts", had other nefarious meanings, like murder. The prosecution was allowed to play 20second to 2 minute clips collected from these calls, and present them in incomplete, non sequential fashion to a jury, while creating this narrative.  Derrick was forced to face trial without a lawyer. Derricks motion to invoke the 106 Rule of Completion was denied, Derrick's motion contesting the merit and reliability of not only a never before certified expert, but also a biased source, was also denied. Most importantly, Derricks endorsement of an Alternate Suspect Defense was denied by corrupt trial Judge Bakke, and was prohibited from mentioning any alternate suspects, or evidence that may create reasonable doubt of a different suspect. This included a written confession from a man claiming to be the real killer. 

Derrick was tried first and convicted before any jury had even determined whether Aeeshawn Mathews committed the murder. Prosecutors during Derrick's trial told Jurors Aeeshawn was a killer, without that ever being proven, poisoning the presumption of innocence for Derrick. Months later, Mathews was tried separately before a different jury and was found not guilty of the murder of William Underwood.

As a result, Derrick Bernard Jr. remains imprisoned for life for a murder under complicity, under a theory that he directed Aeeshawn Mathews to commit the homicide, despite the fact that a subsequent jury found Mathews not guilty of committing that homicide. If Aeeshawn did not commit a murder, then he cannot be complicit in William Underwood's murder. 

While separate juries may reach different conclusions based upon the evidence presented, this sequence of events raises substantial concerns regarding the reliability of the prosecution's theory and the continued validity of Derrick's conviction. At minimum, these circumstances warrant careful executive review.

THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TWO TRIALS

The concerns surrounding Derrick's conviction are amplified by the significant differences between his trial and the later trial of Aeeshawn Mathews.

Derrick's trial proceeded under circumstances that he contends severely restricted his ability to present a complete defense. He represented himself after disputes regarding counsel, was subject to courtroom restrictions, and was prevented from presenting an effective defense,  prevented from  invoking an alternate suspect defense, prohibited from presenting critical evidence and witnesses supporting his defense, and presenting multiple alternate suspect theories that would have created reasonable doubt.  He further contends that he was denied the opportunity to fully develop his alibi, restricted in his ability to challenge the State's theory, and prevented from introducing evidence that would have provided the jury with a more complete understanding of the case.

By contrast, at the subsequent trial of Aeeshawn Mathews, the defense was permitted to present alternate suspect evidence, call witnesses, challenge the State's narrative, and present a broader body of evidence regarding the underlying events. Detective Courtney McCormack was DENIED as an expert witness & nobody was able to tell the jury a concert meant murder. Full recordings and contextual evidence that Derrick argued were important to understanding the communications at issue were reportedly presented to the jury. Mathews motion to invoke the rule of completeness and have the recordings played in full was granted. Jurors heard the full conversations, two musicians, talking about actual music, concerts, and tours. After hearing all that evidence, the jury acquitted Mathews of 1st degree Murder. 

Whether viewed individually or collectively, these contrasting proceedings raise serious questions regarding whether both juries were afforded substantially the same opportunity to hear and evaluate the evidence underlying the State's theory.

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS REGARDING THE RELIABILITY OF THE CONVICTION

In addition to the unusual outcome of the separate trials, Derrick's case presents numerous concerns that warrant independent review, including:

• Violations of his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.

• Restrictions on his ability to present a complete defense.

• Denial of alternate suspect evidence.

• Denial of witness testimony favorable to the defense.

• Questions regarding discovery practices and access to evidence.

• Questions regarding the admission and use of expert testimony.

• Questions regarding the failure to present complete recorded communications  to the jury.

• Concerns regarding the cumulative effect of procedural rulings that may have limited the jury's ability to fully evaluate reasonable doubt.

Further questions arise from the procedural history of the case. It is asserted that in 2021, grand jury was previously considered but declined after determining that probable cause had not been established. After controversial participation in a scheme of the Mayor's in 2023, charges were later pursued through a different process in 2024, creating additional concerns that merit careful review when evaluating the overall reliability of the conviction.

THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE REQUIRE REVIEW

Executive clemency exists to address exceptional cases where substantial doubt exists regarding the correctness of a conviction or where confidence in the outcome has been materially undermined. The power of clemency serves as a safeguard against the possibility that legal finality may stand in conflict with justice.

This petition does not ask the Clemency Authority to re-try the case. Rather, it asks for an independent examination of whether confidence in Derrick Bernard Jr.'s conviction has been sufficiently called into question by the totality of the circumstances.

When a man is serving a life sentence based upon a theory involving a specific alleged perpetrator who was later acquitted, and when substantial concerns exist regarding the fairness and completeness of the proceedings that produced the conviction, the interests of justice demand careful review.

For these reasons, the undersigned respectfully requests:

A full review of the conviction of Derrick Bernard Jr.;
Review of the evidence supporting his claim of innocence;
Review of the constitutional and procedural concerns raised throughout the proceedings;
Any hearing, investigation, or inquiry deemed appropriate by the Clemency Authority; and
The granting of executive clemency and a full pardon in the interests of justice.
Justice requires not only that the guilty be punished, but that the innocent be protected. Where substantial doubt exists regarding the reliability of a conviction, executive clemency serves as an essential safeguard to ensure that justice prevails.