More information

People have ask about the courts decision to not allow the introduction of the letter and why this was wrong so l will attempt to explain as best I can. First is the courts refusal to allow my husband to reopen his case in chief which clearly conflicts with the 6th circuits past cases like U.S. V Henry 204 F.2d 817 (6th circuit 1953) where the court suggests that evidence can be admitted after both parties have rested upon their proof and even after the jury has entered upon its deliberations to help them to ascertain guilt or innocence. Next is the courts refusal to allow exculpatory statements that was provided to the defendant by a potential witness was also wrong. U.S. v Tomes Lexis 13872 (6th circuit 2018) holding that statements made by a potential witness are not discoverable under Rule 16 (b) (2). So my husband had no obligation to give the letter to the prosecution. And last is the inadmissible hearsay ruling. Under Rule 804 the letter was not in fact inadmissible hearsay has the statements were incriminating to the co-defendant. But this is not the only reason the decision was not fair. The Supreme Court held in Chambers v Mississippi that refusal to admit evidence of a co-defendants confession violates due process. The Supreme Court also held that the hearsay rule may not be applied mechanistically. That is exactly what occurred here as noted in the trial transcripts page id# 1780 where the court reporter asked the judge if he wanted to see the letter and he replied I don't need to see it. How can he decide what type evidence the letter contains without reading it. So you see not only is my husband innocent and had evidence that corroborated his testimony but he was also denied a fair trial by standards set by the 6th circuit. This is why we are seeking commutation/ pardon It is also important to note that his conviction was affirmed because of a procedural error in the opening brief of his appeal not because he is guilty but because his appeal attorney did not argue the letter issue properly. If you would like to read this letter and decide for your self you can do so on pacer case# 5:20-cr-00063 docket# 262 (1 attachment court exhibit 1)