My son, Jace Colby Washington (who had no previous criminal record), has been incarcerated in the Louisiana correctional system since May 2007 because he was convicted of a crime that he knew nothing about until he was arrested a week after the crime had been committed. He had a public defender that represented him and was sentenced to 25 years for the crime of manslaughter. On December 2011, the American University of Washington, DC published a 44-page Preliminary Assessment of the Louisiana 22nd Judicial District Public Defenders’ Office that indicates the inadequate funding of this office and the enormous caseloads that each public defender attorney has to deal with on a daily basis. While praying and waiting for the Justice system to clear his name through the appeal process, my son used his time wisely to get his GED, to get an Associate Degree, to become a certified tutor for the Louisiana Correctional System so that he could help others to get their GEDs, and to become bilingual in French.

There were multiple inconsistencies throughout my son’s trial, and we have tried time and time again to bring these inconsistencies to the attention of the St. Tammany Parish District Attorney’s office (which has changed leadership since my son’s conviction because the former District Attorney has been indicted with multiple corruption charges) and other offices, but have had no success. There were three other co-defendants in this case -- Co-defendant #1 who changed his testimony multiple time throughout my son’s trial, who accepted a plea deal, and who already had multiple prior charges; Co-defendant #2 who took a plea deal, was allowed to give testimony against my son before a Judge without my son being present, and whose testimony was totally different from Co-defendant #1; and Co-defendant #3 who admitted to committing the crime along with Co-defendant #1, and was sentenced to life in prison.

One of the inconsistencies was that the State’s case against my son rested totally on the uncorroborated testimonies of Co-defendant #1 & #2. Co-defendant #1’s testimony changed multiple times prior to my son’s trial. Co-defendant #2’s testimony was totally different from Co-defendant #1’s testimony concerning details of what occurred after the crime. Then both of these co-defendants later recanted their testimonies, but were told by the Assistant District Attorney that they would be charged with perjury if they recanted their testimonies in court; so of course they would not. Following is one of the changes in Co-defendant #1’s testimony – first, he told investigating detectives that Co-defendant #3 had a .45 caliber handgun, my son had a black and silver .380 pistol, Co-defendant #2 had no gun, and he had a .9mm Ruger. The investigation indicated that the victim had been killed with a .45 bullet and that a .380 bullet was found in the wall (which is consistent with Co-defendant #3’s testimony of the two of them having a .45 handgun and a .380 pistol when they committed the crime). There were no bullets found at the crime scene from a .9mm Ruger. However, while serving a search warrant at my son’s home (he lived with his father), a .9 mm Luger was found for which his father has a license to own. Then, Co-defendant #1’s testimony changed from him have a .9mm Ruger to my son having a .9mm Luger. My son’s father .9mm Luger was never introduced at the trial as being discharged recently and/or used in the crime.

Another change in Co-defendant #1’s testimony was that the four of them went in Co-defendant #3’s vehicle to the crime scene. However, DNA results from Co-defendant #3’s vehicle revealed that my son’s fingerprints were not found in that vehicle. Then Co-defendant #1’s testimony changed to say that my son was riding with Co-defendant #2.

The second inconsistency is that one of the investigating detectives went to two different judges to request arrest warrants. The first judge was presented with an arrest warrant based on the testimony of Co-defendant #3, which stated that he and Co-defendant #1 had committed the crime. Then the next day, the same investigating detective presented a second judge with an arrest warrant based on the testimony of Co-defendant #1, which stated he, Co-defendant #3, Co-defendant #2 and my son had committed the crime. This point is very interesting because with the testimonies between these two co- defendants were so drastically different, why was there even a reason to request a second arrest warrant? Obviously the question that the investigating detective should have asked herself is why did Co-defendant #3 admit to such a serious crime naming only Co-defendant #1 as his accomplice and leave out two other co-defendants?

A third inconsistency was that at the start of the investigation, all phone numbers of the co-defendants were listed, and sent to primary phone carriers for records. The Assistant District Attorney presented to the jury a phone number that was listed on my son’s phone records as the phone number for Co-defendant #3. However, the phone records came up under someone else’s name and no phone records were ever produced for Co-defendant #3.

These are just a few of the inconsistencies that were part of my son’s trial, and this is the reason I am requesting that either the St. Tammany District Attorney Office and the Louisiana Department of Justice review the evidences that were collected and used to arrest and convict my son for this crime. Most importantly, if they find that our concerns are valid then either the charges be dropped against my son or that my son be granted a new trial.
Please sign this petition to help me to get evidences in my son’s case reviewed, and hopefully bring him back home. If you want to hear or read more about my son’s situation, please go to www.youtube.com and search freejaceNOW or go to www.friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/jace-washington-and-the-sordid-power-of-bribed-testimony/