Have you ever been discriminated against because of the color of your skin, or accused of something that you didn't do? Whether it be of lying, stealing, talking about someone, or something more serious. Do you remember what that felt like, knowing that you were innocent. Powerless, because you couldn't prove that you were being wrongfully accused. Disappointed, because those around you who should have and could have helped did very little to do so. Eventually time goes by, those feelings pass, and we move on right? Not in the case of my husband Charles Glenn an  African American from Manchester, NH. He received a sentence of 30 years to life after being retried and convicted of second degree murder. I want to emphasize that Charles was unquestionably wrongfully convicted facing racial injustice from   the very beginning. If you don't believe that now, you will once your done reading this petition in its entirety.       

In this country we are constitutionally mandated equal justice for all. Although when it comes to this case I find that quite difficult to believe. There is nothing more far removed from NH v. Charles Glenn then equal and justice. We should be utterly ashamed that such a statement hold validity in this day and age. It's like the Constitution Project once stated, "the United States has broken the promise to provide equal justice for all"

Charles Glenn's wrongful conviction is a direct result of that broken promise. Except this isn't the first time that promise was broken. Even as an eleven year old child Charles faced the consequences of being failed by the system. Failed, because it was at this age when they started putting him away in a Youth Detention Center. From the time he was 11 years old until the age of 15 he spent more time in Youth Detention then he did at home with his mother and 3 sisters. Not one person felt the need to intervene in this young boy's life? No one advocated to get him the help that might have changed the course of his life? Evidently the answer is no.  Time went on and Charles then 15 became the youngest juvenile in NH to be incarcerated with adults in NH.  Can you imagine 15 years old in jail with grown men?

I am going to describe the different ways the NH judicial system failed justice, failed us, and most importantly failed Charles. In doing so I'm going to first present the most important facts in this case. The defense didn't obtain there own firearms and G.S.R. expert. This being such a critical component of the case, it's unfathomable how they didn't obtain someone to run their own tests or double check the state's tests. Had they done so the jury would have been made aware of the state's expert's limitations concerning firearms and ammunition. 

This is the conclusion of the John Nixon recently obtained expert for the defense:

1. An independant defense expert could have conducted  a parametric study to identify minimum and maximum muzzle to target distances for 22 caliber firearms. States expert claimed he wouldn't be able to do so without knowing the size of gun and ammunition used.

2. The states expert ruled out the the fatal bullet was fired from a revolver. He performed no FBI GRC search for candidate revolvers. As the prosecution case developed to include a revolver as the preferred weapon elaborate bogus theories were generated to explain away the lack of characteristic revolver skid marks on the bullet.

3. It was apparent from deposition, and two trials, that the prosecution expert did not understand the basic mechanism by which revolver skid marks are formed.

4.Given that the bullet was described as deformed the accuracy of of the land and groove measurements was questionable. Information entered into the FBI GRC database was not sound.

5. The problems with PGSR analysis are related to transfer and cross contamination issues. PGSR analysis has been widely criticized within the forensic science community. To the point that where few state crime labs currently employ it and the FBI abandoned the procedure in approximately 2007.

6.The GSR test protocol done by McCrone Labs was out of date and yielded results that would have confused a jury. McCrone considered single particles of not just the three target metals but several other metals that are present in the environment in abundance.

7. The age of the PGSR particles detected in the Nissan Pathfinder were never questioned. It was assumed they were from the time of the alleged incident. The test would have been the same if the PGSR had been deposited ten years earlier.

8. The PGSR particles detected were more consistent with results expected from centrefire ammunition than those expected from rimfire ammunition like the state claimed. 

9. The PGSR distribution pattern in the Nissan Pathfinder is consistent with a shot being fired from the driver's seat area towards the rear passenger side area. 

10.The van that was allegedly used as the getaway vehicle by the shooter tested negative for PGSR.                                                                                                       

THIS CONFIRMS THAT THE DRIVER HAD NO PGSR CONTAMINATION TO TRANSFER TO SURFACES WITHIN THAT VEHICLE.

In 2005 Mr. Glenn is charged with first degree murder (while during or after the commission of a robbery) and a second degree murder.  He was found not guilty of first degree murder and a hung jury 8 out of 12 in favor of acquittal for second degree murder. You might be asking where's the injustice in that? Pay close attention otherwise you'll be blinded by the corruption imposed by the A.G.'s. Seeing that they were unsuccessful in securing a conviction the first time around. They would stop at nothing to assure that didn't happen the second time around.

If we take a look at NH v. Glenn which is from the first trial (No. 2008-912) Then go on to read NH v. Glenn (2012-701) from second trial. You will see how there are two different narratives, false narratives. Wherein two different motives were alleged for the same exact crime. If Mr. Glenn wasn't a black man in a predominately white state being charged with the murder of a white man, then there probably would't have even been a second trial. After numerous ineffective defense attorneys, prosecutorial misconduct, and racial bias he is found guilty of murder at his second trial.

The U.S. Supreme court ruled that the highest standard of proof is grounded on "a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free."(legal dic) 

FACTS of the case are as follows:

From the start the main eye witness Joseph Salvatore gave false statements to the police as to the events in question. Every time he was questioned he would give a different set of lies. While attempting to blend in with the crowd Salvatore was asked by authorities if he knew what had happened. He appeared to be nervous so the officer patted him down and found the victim's wallet on him. He and the victim were friends and rode together to the scene. I ask myself why would Salvatore be found in the crowd of onlookers instead of by his friend's side? What could have possibly prevented him from calling 911 and helping his friend? He reported seeing an unknown BLACK male shoot the victim in the middle of the parking lot of Bass Island Estates (Manchester, NH) this came after denying any knowledge of the incident. Salvatore was known to always be in possession (either on his person or in his vehicle) of a gun the same caliber as the gun used in the murder. That was confirmed during trial testimony of Salvatore's previous landlords. Salvatore had also applied for a gun permit approximately a month before the shooting took place

At trial, the State's proof that the defendant shot and killed Gosselin depended heavily upon the testimony of Salvatore. The trial court found that during the investigation, “Salvatore repeatedly lied to the State.” Immediately after the shooting, Salvatore told police that he came upon an argument between the victim and an unknown black male, and watched the black male grab the victim's gold chain and shoot him. Five days later, on September 4, 2005, he admitted that he and the victim had driven together to a housing complex to conduct a pre-arranged drug purchase. He informed police that when they arrived at the complex, the victim climbed out of the vehicle and a black male meeting the defendant's description approached and then shot him. In January 2006, Salvatore testified before the grand jury, providing a similar account to the one he gave on September 4, 2005.

On July 10, 2006, before the start of trial but after jury selection, Salvatore spoke with the police again and provided a different version of the shooting. Most notably, he stated that the shooting occurred inside his car and that the victim may have reached for a gun before being shot. He also stated that he purchased a 9-mm handgun and applied for a permit to carry the handgun as a concealed weapon after the shooting.

Justice Linda Dalianis of the Supreme Court even recognized the state's critical witness was problematic to say the least. She voiced concern during a hearing by saying "so we have the two episodes of perjury and the newly discovered evidence about when the gun permit was issued is there not some point where we pile on this problematic testimony from apparently the only eye witness."(NH v Glenn 2008-912 hearing)  Why did Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, Karen Huntress, and Charles Keefe not find Salvatore's consistent lying to be troublesome? I'd reckon to say that's due to the fact the state attorneys cooperated with Salvatore to come to an agreement for a deceitful purpose, plainly put that means collusion. Salvatore was given immunity to protect him from prosecution as long as he provided the false narrative that coincided with the states speculation. 

The collusion didn't end with Salvatore. There was another shady character by the name of Thomas Williams who also gave false narratives in order to get leniency with his own criminal matters. His first statement said that he had no knowledge of the incident but the police were not satisfied with that using prior knowledge of his criminal activity to persuade him to give a statement. He then went on to say that weeks prior he saw Mr. Glenn in possession of a gun while in the presence of Melissa Robinson and Alyssa Stuart. Both Ms. Robinson and Ms. Stuart gave statements saying that was absolutely untrue. That Mr. Glenn did not have a gun and that Williams was lying. Regardless of that he was still called by the state to testify to that material statement thus also perjuring himself. When he was contacted by A.G. to prepare for second trial testimony is when he came to admit he had lied recanting his claims. After all his deal had already come to a closure as it was now 2011. The fact that he lied made no difference to the A.G.'s. they were well aware of his lies. They didn't even care that his story didn't corroborate with what they were saying as far as where, why, and how the events took place.

Nonetheless they needed his testimony in order to continue portraying the false narrative that Mr. Glenn was the shooter. In turn they granted Williams immunity as well to protect him from future charges of perjury or the like.

The state attorneys were not in search of justice that's quite clear by the repulsive mishandling of this case. All they wanted was a conviction no matter the cost. At the first trial A.G.'s Kelly Ayotte, Karen Huntress, And Charles Keefe called Salvatore to testify in the presence of the grand jury. Knowing that the testimony he was about to give was comprised of lies. The A.G.'s still presented him in order to ensure the indictments on Mr. Glenn despite the fact that they would be tainted.  Even though they had statements from Chad Diaz, Ethan Webb, and Anestis Karathanisis that went against what Salvatore was claiming to have happened.  along with the phone call between Chad Diaz and Joseph Salvatore.  As well as telephone records that contradicted and denounced Salvatore's claims to be true.     Along with the six inconsistent statements Salvatore gave to police.

Since the acquittal in 2006 AG sought new indictments based on the false narratives originally given by Salvatore just tweaked and manufactured a little different. Only this time as not to expose that they knowingly put false evidence in front of the grand jury. Peter Hinckley and Karin Eckle failed and continue to fail  disclosing any of the witnesses that were called in front of the jury. And also all of there material statements by withholding them even though it violates the Jenks Act and rule 6e2 of the federal rules of criminal procedure) Costello v. U.S. and Brady v. Maryland. Talk about trying to hide the elephant in the room. In United States v. Agurs, the Court summarized and somewhat expanded the prosecutor's obligation to disclose to the defense exculpatory evidence in his possession, even in the absence of a request, or upon a general request, by defendant. 

As time progressed and the second trial was slowly approaching Kelly Ayotte's successors Peter Hinckley and Karin Eckle followed in the footsteps of corruption.  At this time as their false narrative changed to include a revolver as the preferred suspect weapon. Peter Hinckley showed up at the front counter of NHSPFL. He spoke to Mr. Otrowski the state's firearms criminalist about the Glenn case and that is was set for retrial. He told Mr. Otrowski to run the GRC measurements of the bullet through the FBI GRC database with parameters set only for revolvers. Needless to say he had to have changed his methodology in order to produce a list of revolvers. Otherwise why wouldn't he have included these results in his original examination report? 

The reason they weren't included in the original report is distinctly because the rifling characteristics did not fit the revolver criteria. Mr. Otrowski was inclined to generate elaborate bogus theories to explain away the absence of characteristic revolver skid marks during his trial testimony. Without having to be told by Mr. Hinckley to modify the search produced by the FBI database. It's fair to say that wouldn't have no need for him to adjust his original findings. In an exchange of emails between Mr. Hinckley and Mr. Otrowski it shows Mr. Hinckley had a very specific goal in sight. The nerve of Peter Hinckley  state attorney telling Stephen Otrowski the criminalist how to perform his duties knowing good and well he had already established and concluded his exam report.

The act of breaking the law, court rules, or code of ethics of law practice, while working as a prosecuting attorney is the definition of prosecutorial misconduct. The state contrived a conviction through the pretense of a trial which in truth is but used as a means of depriving a defendant of liberty through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimonies known to be perjured. Prosecutorial misconduct is either the leading cause or a contributing cause of wrongful convictions. Seventy percent of the murder prosecutions that led to exoneration included official misconduct. I have laid out the main points of both trials to display how corrupt the Attorney Generals were in this case. Although there was no conviction in the first trial they sought a retrial conjuring a slew of charges.

Attorneys take an oath to do no falsehood or consent that any be done in the court, that if they know of any will give knowledge, thereof to justices of the court. Kelly Ayotte, Karen Huntress, and Charles Keefe never gave the defense the exculpatory evidence while the trial was taking place, to include Salvatore's gun permit and police reports verifying his possession of a firearm of which was the same caliber (.22) as the weapon in Mr. Glenn's case. They circumvented the perjury statute by giving grants of immunity for more false testimony. Its unimaginable to see such a flagrant act of misconduct by people in a position of power. The very same people who are supposed to seek justice, but they themselves in essence are committing crimes to obtain convictions. Defense counsel had a duty when they became aware of the exculpatory evidence. They should've reported it to the professional ethics committee or the like. They had an ethical obligation not only to themselves, but also to their client. Both sets of attorneys failed Mr. Glenn one way or another. 

Mr. Glenn had made up his mind even before proceedings began that he wanted to testify at his second trial. He made this very clear to his attorneys Mark Howard and Dave Ruoff. The attorneys were against Mr. Glenn getting up on the stand and they made it very clear that they would not be allowing him to testify. How absurd does that sound? Not allowing him to testify on his own behalf. That's a clear violation Smith v. Dickhaut, 836 f.3d 97-107 first circuit 2016 right testify or not belongs exclusively to the defendant,,( Roc v. Arkansas (483-U.S.44-51,,1987) It's a necessary ingredient of the 14th amendment that nobody shall be deprived of  liberty without due process of law to include a right to be heard and give testimony. Mr.Glenn clearly asserted his constitutional right to testify. It came to the point that Mr. Glenn spoke up in the courtroom telling the judge that he wanted to testify and his lawyers wouldn't let him. (Noted in court transcripts) The judge responded by telling him that if he didn't like what his lawyers said that he could go pro se. That's the optionMr. Glenn was offered. To be his own lawyer. Glenn responded how would I testify and ask myself questions at the same time. How dare the judge even suggest something so absurd, shame on him.  On a different occasion family members heard  banging and screaming from the room Mr. Glenn was being held in. When speaking with his family he told them he wanted to draw attention to make it known that he was not being allowed to take the stand.

The lawyers can suggest or recommend that he not testify, but they can't deliberately exclude him from the witness list to keep him from testifying. That's not their decision to make. He had the right to testify if he so chose, yet they denied him that right. This is another reason that counsel provided ineffective assistance in Mr. Glenn's defense. 

Mark Howard and David Ruoff were also aware that the prosecution was going to be calling Thomas Williams whose testimony was not supported by evidence and was known to be untrue. As I mentioned earlier on, his many statements did not even coincide with what the state was alleging. Then we have Amy Haley(Ariaza), Melissa Robinson, and Alissa Stuart who could and would denounce William's testimony and validate that he was in fact lying. You would expect that these witnesses would have been called to testify and refute William's testimony, yet they never were. As a matter of fact for every witness the state had testify. The defense could have had two individual witnesses testify in Mr. Glenn's vindication. Notice I said could have and that's grounded on fact.  For being defense attorneys they sure didn't present much of a defense. Consequently giving the jury no reason to doubt his testimony. At the very least Mark Howard and David Ruoff should have reported Attorney General Peter Hinckley and Karin Eckle to the board of professional conduct for violating rule 3.4b for assisting a witness to testify falsely.

Under the sixth amendment criminal defendants have constitutional right to effective assistant of counsel. Mr. Glenn's rights were violated under NH v Whittaker(158N.H.762-769,,2009). Glenn's attorneys failed to consult with an expert in the field of GSR to rebut the states criminalist which relied upon fake and bogus scientific evidence, that was also tainted and influenced by Peter Hinckley as I explained before. Since then we obtained a real criminalist with appropriate credentials that shuts down every possible theory alleged by the state. The report written by John Nixon is clear and concise on every aspect of the bullet. Clear and concise on all aspects of the GSR describing in great detail how and why the states expert Wayne Niemeyer who is employed by McCrone Labs, report and trial testimony was completely misleading and inaccurate. Mr. Nixon not only crushes the states theory that Mr. Glenn is the shooter. He also gives clear and precise science as to the actual position of the shooter to be in the drivers seat (Salvatore's location). No doubt Mr. Nixons testimony and Mr. Glenn's testimony would have changed the outcome of the second trial. It's clear ineffective assistance of counsel.

Mark Howard and David Ruoff were employed with Attorney Generals office and the U.S. attorney general as prosecutors during the time of Mr. Glenn's initial indictment in 2005. They were colleagues and even friends with the A.G.'s prosecuting this case and had no real incentive to provide Mr. Glenn with a defense.

The truth is court appointed counsel barely have enough time to accept their phone calls. Let alone perform the timely investigations needed to prepare their case. Working to seek truth and justice falls by the wayside on both ends of the spectrum. It's evident that minority people don't get justice. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights report concluded the treatment of minorities characterizes every stage of the process. Black and Hispanic Americans, and other minority groups as well, are victimized by disproportionate targeting and unfair treatment by police and other frontline law enforcement officials; by racially skewed charging and decisions of prosecutors; and by failure of judges, elected officials and other criminal justice policy makers to redress the inequities that become more glaring every day.

We the people of the United States lets not ignore the fact that this is a clear conflict of interest, prosecutorial misconduct, coupled with ineffective assistance of counsel. We are many, God fearing ,loving conscious people. We have a civic duty as tax payers to stand up to government corruption, racial bias, oppression or desertion of our fellow people. We have to stand together and show love for humanity and right this wrong injustice.                                                                            In the famous words of Martin Luther King Jr.                                                                                   "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."                                                                                                                                                                                        “The time is always right to do what is right.” 

"In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends."                                                        

"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those    who are."                                 Benjamin Franklin                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             "Justice delayed is justice denied"                                                                                             William E. Gladstone                                                                                          

   #EXPOSINGNHBEGINSWITHCG#https://vimeo.com/348968970