Petition to District Attorney of Saint Charles County, Judge Daniel Green, Missouri Assistant Attorney General Patrick J. Logang, Attorney General of Missouri Eric Schmitt
Demand a Fair Trial for Jonathan Irons, Wrongfully Convicted Since Age 16
Jonathan Irons has been incarcerated since 1997 for a crime that he did not commit. He was just 16 years old at the time and arrested for the non-fatal shooting of a homeowner during a burglary -- even though no DNA evidence, fingerprints, physical evidence, or footprint evidence collected ever linked Jonathan to the crime. I’ve known Jonathan for over a decade, and I’m fighting to make sure his case gets a fair review and calling attention to the prosecutorial misconduct that I believe resulted in Jonathan being wrongfully sent to prison for 50 years as a teenager. Will you stand with me and demand new evidence be considered? Jonathan’s conviction was based solely on unreliable eyewitness testimony. Credible witnesses who could have provided testimony to Jonathan’s whereabouts during the time of the crime were never brought to court to testify, and Jonathan was interrogated by authorities without a guardian or attorney present, even though he was a minor. Moreover, when the shooting victim indicated that he couldn’t identify his shooter, police officers told him to give his “best guess” which led to his guess of Jonathan. Jonathan has now been in prison for 22 years, for a crime I know and thousands of others know he didn’t commit. I met Jonathan through a family member’s prison ministry program when I was 18. I was shocked and horrified to discover that this was happening to someone who was only a couple years younger than I was at the time of his arrest. I was even more shocked to learn that over 10,000 people may be wrongfully convicted of serious crimes each year and that prosecutorial misconduct is rampant in communities across the United States. I’m dedicating my life to freeing Jonathan the same way I dedicated myself to each game in the WNBA. And it’s why I need your help today. I urge you to join me in asking Judge Daniel Green and Missouri Assistant Attorney General Patrick J. Logang, the Office of the Missouri State Attorney General and the Office of the District Attorney of Saint Charles County to take into account the undeniable facts of Jonathan’s case, and provide justice for Jonathan Irons once and for all.
Petition to Greg Abbott, Ken Paxton, Texas Board of Pardons and Parole, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Kim Ogg, United States Supreme Court
FREE ROB WILL
Rob Will was convicted and sentenced to death in 2001 for a crime he did not commit. More than 18 years later, he is still fighting for his life on Texas Death Row, in one of the most notorious prisons in America: the Allan B. Polunsky Unit. It is essential for awareness to be raised for this miscarriage of justice as Rob comes to the end of his appeals process. After being wrongfully convicted for half of his life, and surviving the most inhumane conditions possible, please help us achieve justice and bring Rob home. "On top of considerable evidence supporting Will's innocence and the important errors in the trial court, there must also be addressed the absence of eyewitness testimony or strongly probative forensic evidence ... only circumstantial evidence supports Will's conviction and death sentence."- U.S. Federal District Judge, 2012 FACTS OF INNOCENCE:Rob was convicted in the fatal shooting of a police officer based on circumstantial evidence, despite the fact that :- Police radio logs prove he had been searched and handcuffed prior to the murder- All forensic test results were inconsistent with Rob being the shooter- Five witnesses gave sworn affidavits that Rob's co-defendant confessed to the murder- Several people witnessed the co-defendant at the apartment covered in blood- County jail records show the co-defendant attempted to put a "hit" on Rob prior to trial- The co-defendants finger prints, shoe casts, and other forensic evidence were never tested. His clothes were tested but due to thorough bleaching, no DNA could be extracted from the blood stains on them. ABOUT ROB: Rob Will lives in a 6 x 10 foot cell for up to 23 hours a day, enduring conditions of intense loneliness and deprivation. One of the only times he leaves his cell is for visitation, which is conducted through glass on a telephone. No human contact isallowed. He is allowed one hour per day for recreation, in a larger indoor or outdoor cage, where he cannot see the sky or feel the sun. He has no access to the internet or television. His only escape is his radio, books, and letters from his friends on the outside. Rob was born in Harris County, Texas in June of 1978. Raised in a very turbulent and abusive household, with a father who was a heroin addict, Rob's early years were far from idyllic. He was physically and sexually abused from a very young age throughout his childhood. When Rob was ten years old, his father was murdered. Prior to his wrongful conviction, he was studying Child Psychology at Houston Community College because he wanted to help children who, like himself, were experiencing a hard and painful life. It is common for those held in such harsh conditions to lose hope altogether, however, that has not been the case with Rob. Despite the depravity of inhumane conditions he has endured, Rob has remained very positive about his chances of achieving justice. During his incarceration, he has educated himself on a wide range of subjects, expanded his spirituality, and broadened his creative horizon. Rob has become a certified yoga instructor, published writer, and a passionate, self taught artist. Rob creates extraordinary artwork given limited supplies Texas Death Row provides. His artwork has been displayed in multiple solo shows in both the U.S. and Europe; in Germany, the United Kingdom, Texas and most recently, New York City in two solo installations produced by Jason Flom. He also completed a Paralegal distance learning course in 2017, which took a high level of concentration in the environment he lives in. He has high hopes of working to help fix the system that wrongfully convicted him so other people don't have to experience the same horror he has been living through for the last 18 years. "This place, this prison, this death camp exists on a foundation of lies, deceit, and half-truths. But with art, we can tell our own truths and let the power of artistic expression be a true revolutionary act."- Rob Will SUPPORT | PRESS Rob has had a variety of support and press throughout the years of his wrongful conviction: Support:- International support from 45+ countries- Represented at: Innocence Matters! A Speak Out in Denton, TX in 2010- Dedicated radio shows in Texas, the U.K. (Link: BBC Interview) and Belgium- Art exhibition fundraisers in the U.K. , Germany, Texas, and New York City- Benefit concerts in the U.K., Germany and Belgium- Social media support: @freerobwill - Facebook | Instagram | Twitter Press:2012: The New York Times | The Texas Tribune | The Houston Chronicle2015: ListVerse2018: The Houston Chronicle2019: Free Rob Will | Free Rob Will II Rob has a growing list of notable supporters such as:Jason Flom; CEO of Lava Records, Founding Board Member of The Innocence Project, Wrongful Conviction Podcast Host, Author, PhilanthropistDr. Phil McGraw, Ph.D; Host of TV’s #1 daytime talk showDamien Echols; Arkansas Death Row Survivor, Author, Spiritual Teacher, ArtistJordan Wynn; Los Angeles based Film ProducerChiké Okonkwo; British Actor and Film ProducerJames Earley; U.K. based Artist, winner of the prestigious London Biennale, the Giotto International Prize and the Leonardo da Vinci International Prize.Peter Tunney, NYC based International ArtistLeonor Anthony; Miami based International Artist / Activist, recipient of the Denis Diderot Grant 2018 awarded by the Chateau d’Orquevaux in Champagne, France "Rob Will is an innocent man on death row, but he is so much more than that. He is an accomplished poet, painter and yogi, a voracious reader of classic literature, a student of philosophy, classical music, philology and the law. As a trained and certified paralegal, Rob is acutely aware of how the system has failed him at every level and every turn, and yet he harbors no ill will; has no bitterness towards anyone. This man is kind, thoughtful and brilliant. He would be a tremendous asset to free society. I am committed to helping bring him home to his son and grandson, where he belongs." - Jason Flom CASE SUMMARY On the morning of December 4th, 2000, 22-year-old Robert Will, his co-defendant and others were stripping cars for parts in a suburban Houston neighborhood. When two Harris County Deputies suddenly arrived, the men ran off in different directions. Deputy Hill caught Rob, searched him and cuffed his hands behind his back. The Deputy radioed into the station that he had Rob in custody; less than one minute later shots were heard on the radio. There was no sound of an altercation. The other Deputy had been chasing and lost a male figure when he heard the sound of gunfire. During Rob’s trial, the Deputy’s partner was unable to identify the male figure he was chasing. Once Rob was handcuffed, his co-defendant shot the Deputy wounding Rob in the process. The Harris County Sheriff’s Department Gunshot Injury Chart shows a traverse gunshot wound to the back of the head which directly indicates that the shooter was behind the Deputy to his left. Rob’s co-defendant is the son of a prominent Houston police officer; therefore, he always kept handcuff keys on his person. He was able to free Rob from his handcuffs, both men then fled in different directions. Rob ran to a nearby parking lot where he ordered a woman out of her car and drove away. "4119, I’VE GOT ONE IN CUSTODY” At 6:36 am on December 4th, 2000 the Harris County Deputy radios into dispatch, “4119, I’ve got one in custody”. “4119” refers to that specific Unit. The prosecutor, Charles “Chuck” Rosenthal, Jr., contends that Rob shot the Deputy one minute after this call was made. There was no sound of altercation on the recording, only shots fired approximately one minute after this call was made. “Custody” is different from detaining an individual. "Detaining" would imply the Officer may simply be holding an individual for questioning (with or without restraints). However, standard police training dictates that a suspect in custody is always restrained. When a suspect is handcuffed, it’s standard operating procedure for the officer to search that individual for weapons prior to cuffing them. The two responding officers came upon and chased two suspects; Deputy Hill pursued Rob and his partner allegedly pursued and lost the co-defendant. However, the prosecution claims the co-defendant would not have had time to reach Deputy Hill as there was only eight seconds between his partner losing sight of him, some 470 feet from the scene of the shooting, and the first shot being fired. At trial, Deputy Hill’s partner agreed that he never made a positive identification of the co-defendant and that he could have been chasing any one of these individuals. But if indeed he was chasing the co-defendant, the radio transcript and his own testimony at trial show that the co-defendant would have had, at the very least, 26 seconds, and not the 8 seconds’ prosecutors claim, to reach the scene and shoot Deputy Hill. TIMELINE/EXCERPTS FROM RADIO TRANSCRIPT:- At 6:37:02, Deputy Hill’s partner states “He’s running along the bayou."- Rob is apprehended.- 43 seconds later at 6:37:45, Hill says “4119, I’ve got one in custody.”- 18 seconds later at 6:38:03, Hill’s partner asks “19, I got any units in route to me?”- 26 seconds later at 6:38:29, first shot fired as heard over the open radio. Deputy Hill’s partner testified at trial:“I didn’t catch the second man, lost sight of him, but he was on the east side. I saw him disappear around a tree. I asked [the] dispatcher if any other units were en route and where I had lost sight of him.” He stated he had lost whoever he was chasing before he radioed in and inquired about additional units en route to him. If it was the co-defendant that he was pursuing, the co-defendant would have had from at least 6:38:03 (when the deputy radioed in) until 6:38:29 (when the first shot was fired) to reach Hill - a total of 26 seconds. Although it would not be unrealistic to assume that Hill’s partner did not lose sight of the suspect at the exact second he radioed and therefore, the co-defendant would potentially have had much more than 26 seconds to reach Deputy Hill. Prosecutors claim he lost sight of the co-defendant 470 feet from the scene of the crime by the bayou, near the bridge. The co-defendant was a young fit man, who could easily run 470 feet in 26 seconds. However, this distance is merely speculation on the Prosecution’s behalf, no solid evidence exists to prove its accuracy. The Deputy’s partner did state that he lost the suspect when he “disappeared around a tree”. The suspect must have been near the wooded area and not on the bayou or near the bridge by Darbydale. As trial testimony shows, this is a flat area completely devoid of trees and bushes. There were no trees for a suspect to disappear behind. He also stated at trial:“(I) made it to the bayou, looked toward the bridge at the end of the street to the east then started making my way back to where I lost sight of the suspect.” Thus, he did not lose the suspect on the bayou or near the bridge, but closer to the actual crime scene, where there were trees. Taking all these facts into consideration, the co-defendant would have in fact had to run less than 470 feet, as he was not last seen on the bayou. He had more than 26 seconds to reach Deputy Hill, meaning the co-defendant could have easily been the shooter. FORENSIC EVIDENCEThe two witness statements the deputy’s partner gave directly after the crime differed from his trial testimony and when he took the stand to testify, he offered several different and inconsistent versions of the events of that day. - Prosecution’s expert witness contradicting the thesis that Rob would be the shooter. - According to the prosecution’s ballistic expert witness, the first shot was fired from a distance of less than 8 inches.If the first shot took off Rob’s knuckles, as they claim, and it was shot from less than 8 inches, Rob’s blood and DNA would have been present at the site of the wound and on Deputy Hill’s clothing. This was not the case. Further testimony stated that a trail of Rob’s blood was found leading from the crime scene, confirming that Rob was bleeding profusely. If he had shot his own left hand less than 8 inches away from Deputy Hill, a significant quantity of Rob’s blood should have been found on Hill’s clothing, especially if Rob had stood over Hill as he lay on the ground and shot him repeatedly. Only one small drop of Rob’s blood was found on the tip of Deputy Hill’s boot. No other blood was present. Also, at close range, Rob would have been unable to avoid getting blood splatter from Deputy Hill on himself and all over his own clothing. Forensic Pathologist, Dr. Adams’, testimony does not support the Prosecution’s theory, that Rob shot Deputy Hill from the ground and then fired additional shots when Deputy Hill was on the ground. At trial he stated the following with regard to one of Deputy Hill’s gunshot wounds: “This would be consistent, with the shooter being to the side of the Deputy or the Deputy’s head being turned away from the shooter. It would be consistent with both those scenarios. It would be consistent if they were approximately the same size and in the standing position…it would be possible that if the defendant and victim were standing face to face being handcuffed someone could approach from the left and shoot. That would be consistent with the entry and exit wounds. Someone could have been hiding in the bush and approached from the left side.” This testimony supports Rob’s version of events and throws into doubt the prosecutors’ version, which supposes the first shots were fired while Rob was on the ground, and the remainder of the shots were fired as Deputy Hill lay on the ground. GUN SHOT RESIDUE (GSR)The results for all of Rob’s GSR tests proved negative. The co-defendant’s hands were neither bagged nor tested for GSR. The most important fact regarding the GSR testimony and the test results is that Rob was shot in his left hand. It is important to note that he is right handed. His right hand tested negative on both the hand itself and the glove he was wearing. This proves that the gunshot injury was not a result of Rob shooting himself. It is also highly unlikely that he was shot by Deputy Hill, because his gun was in the holster. The GSR evidence proves that Rob had not fired a gun even once, let alone multiple times that night and therefore could not have murdered Deputy Hill. INFORMANT TESTIFIES AS TO THE CO-DEFENDANT'S GUILT Four inmates came forward and stated that when they were housed together with the co-defendant at the Harris County Jail, he had confessed to them that he had murdered Deputy Hill. He also provided details about the crime that were not publicly known or available. They also stated that Rob had always maintained that he was innocent. Three of these four inmates were intimidated into not testifying at trial on Rob’s behalf, only later providing affidavits. During the trial, under direct examination between one of Rob’s lawyers and a former inmate of the Harris County Jail, the following exchange took place:Q. “What did he tell you?”A. “I don’t remember exactly what he [the co-defendant] told me what happened, but I remember he said that he [the co-defendant] had no choice but to shoot the cop. It was instinct and he ran…”Q. “Did he [the co-defendant] tell you anything about the type of weapon that was used?”A. “It was a big 40, 40mag, something like that.”Q. “Did he tell you anything about his father?”A. “He said his father was a police officer and that it was really nothing anybody could do to him.”Note: The murder weapon was a 40-caliber gun. Another inmate stated:“I was brought to Court to testify. I was put in the Court’s holding cell area, only a few cells away from [the co-defendant]. [The co-defendant] threatened me and said I’d better not testify about what he told me. I told him I wasn’t going to.”The co-defendant had no reason to be at the Court’s holding cell area that day; he wasn’t due to testify at any trial and therefore should not have been at the Courts. The trial record indicates that another inmate refused to testify because deputies severely beat him and told him not to testify. This inmate claimed that he “told them [Lawyers] that police officers or Deputies broke his arm because he was coming to Court to testify”. Testimony before the Court shows his arm was broken and a fresh cast was present.Another inmate informant explained that the night after he had initially spoken to Detectives, an inmate known to be dangerous was moved into the cell next to him. He attempted to intimidate him as the co-defendant previously had: Inmate: “I think it was Wednesday when I came to talk to ya’ll man. And they moved him up there. And he was asking me about it, hey man, so, what? You’re gonna snitch on this and tell about this case and shit, you’re a fucking snitch”.Detectives: “You realize that there is always the possibility that you might have to testify in Court with regards to these statements”.Inmate: “I told [Rob’s lawyer] that I didn’t really want to… I mean, cause if I go to prison or something and you know, say [the co-defendant] gets charged with it, he goes to prison. I mean he’s got a lot of friends; you know he says he’s Puerto-Rican. So, he’s got a lot of friends, you know what I’m saying, and I’m trying to come home alive, man… And he done told me, my dad’s a cop and I can have you tooken care of and I have pull and I have this and why do you think I am getting charged with a lesser crime?” The fourth inmate informant was also a victim of intimidation but testified regardless of this.An individual who witnessed the intimidation of this inmate informed Rob’s lawyers that he “was handcuffed to a bench in the back of the courtroom, by himself, on the “witness bench”. An inmate that was not wearing handcuffs, who he did not know, came up to him and began beating him and screaming, “You fucking snitch, you better not testify!” FINGERPRINTSFingerprints were taken from items at the crime scene, including the shell casings of the bullets. Also tested were the items found in Rob’s utility closet at his apartment, which the co-defendant left there. These items included the murder weapon’s holster, additional bullets, a loaded .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver, two shotguns, a bulletproof vest, a dagger, and ammunition. A photograph of the co-defendant wearing the bulletproof vest and holding one of the firearms was admitted into evidence as proof of the co-defendant’s ownership of these items. Rob’s fingerprints were not found on any items at the crime scene, in the utility closet or on any items deemed to be associated with the murder of Deputy Hill. The co-defendant’s fingerprints were never submitted for comparison. DNA EVIDENCEAll of Rob’s clothes were tested for DNA. The only DNA found to be present was that of Rob himself. One of Rob’s gloves contained both his DNA and that of an “unknown” donor which was not a match with either Rob or Deputy Hill. No other DNA specimens, including the co-defendants were ever submitted for comparison. The co-defendant’s pants were tested after his father handed them in to police. The pants were stained with blood but Forensic Services were unable to extract any DNA as the pants had been bleached, destroying all evidence. A fact previously confirmed by witnesses at Rob’s apartment. WITNESS TESTIMONIES THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER After being refused access to a friend’s home due to his bloody state, the co-defendant ended up at Rob’s apartment. Four witnesses were at the apartment when he arrived. In front of two of these witnesses the co-defendant confessed to shooting a police officer and accidentally shooting Rob. Rob’s co-defendant proceeded to remove his bloody clothes, wash and pour bleach over them to destroy any DNA evidence. Witnesses testified that he took the holster, gun case and spare bullets of the murder weapon and placed them in an outside utility closet with a note that read: “Rob, here’s my stuff”. The co-defendant signed it with the name of a mutual friend of both Rob and his. Several people witnessed the co-defendant at the apartment covered in blood and performing all of the above stated actions that day. All have now provided sworn affidavits. Meanwhile, Rob drove the car to Brenham, Texas where he was fully cooperative with the police officer who arrested him. His hands and gloves were bagged for testing, and his wounded left hand was treated. The co-defendant was subsequently arrested for capital murder but only charged with car theft. Both he and Rob were housed at the Harris County Jail. On December 9th, five days after the murder, the co-defendant’s parents brought investigators the clothes he supposedly wore on December 4th, carefully bleached (yet, still stained with blood), washed and folded in a neat pile. CO-DEFENDANT PUTS OUT A HIT ON ROB New evidence reveals that after the co-defendant was booked at the Harris County Jail, he attempted to have the only witness to his crime, Rob, killed. Jail records indicate that the co-defendant was placed into administrative separation in the Harris County Jail after Deputy Hill’s murder because he solicited an inmate and a prison gang to make a hit on Rob. The discovery of this document led to the recent sworn affidavit of the inmate. Despite having access to these records, the prosecution failed to turn these over to the defense, a clear Brady violation. The new evidence demonstrates that the co-defendant attempted to have Rob killed because he feared Rob would expose him as the shooter in Deputy Hill’s murder. In his sworn affidavit, the inmate also reports that the co-defendant confessed to shooting Deputy Hill and told him he planned to “blame Rob.” This confession is similar to at least two other confessions he made to other inmates. A Harris county jail officer also reported that the co-defendant had bragged to her about his involvement three days after the murder. THE “WALL OF BLUE” AND JUROR IMPARTIALITYRob expressed concerns on several occasions regarding the amount of uniformed police officers that were present at his trial on a daily basis. This presence in Court is known by police officers as “the wall of blue,” a tactic often used to influence and/or intimidate the juries of defendants accused of murdering a police officer. During Rob’s trial, there were countless uniformed deputies or police officers displaying badges of mourning sitting with the family of the slain Deputy. These seats were closest to the jurors’ seats. In December 2001, the Houston Star, a newspaper for local law enforcement personnel, printed the following announcement on the front page:“The trial of Robert Gene Will II, who was charged with Capital Murder of a Police Officer after the murder of one of our brothers, begins January 7, 2002, in the 185th District. This is a reminder for as many uniformed deputies, that can be there, attend.” It must be questioned whether having that many uniformed police officers standing arm-in-arm against Rob had a prejudicial effect on the sitting jurors. When these facts were presented to the Court of Criminal Appeals, it was noted that they: “found no evidence that jurors’ sympathies were susceptible to being swayed by the police presence, such as it would, for instance, if the jurors had close ties to law enforcement.” Meaning, if the jurors had “close ties to law enforcement” they would have in fact been “susceptible to being swayed by the police presence” in the Court on a daily basis. Three jurors did indeed have “close ties to law enforcement”. The Voir Dire Transcript provided the following information: - One juror had friends who were police officers and a brother who was a State Trooper.- Another juror had a friend who was a police officer who had actually been involved with this very case, the murder of Deputy Hill. This juror also spoke to this officer, who was testifying, during the trial, outside the courtroom.- A juror stated that a good friend of her husband's was with the Houston Police Department. This would have made them already biased in favor of the police even without the addition of a large police presence in the courtroom, which surely could have only added to that bias. CHARLES “CHUCK” ROSENTHAL, ROB’S PROSECUTORThe Prosecutor at Rob’s trial was Charles “Chuck” Rosenthal. He was forced to resign in 2008 after being besieged by scandals, including accusations of intoxication at work, sending sexist and racist emails, having an adulterous affair, and deleting over 3,500 emails that were under subpoenas and under court order. D.A. Rosenthal also was aware about the serious problems with the police department crime lab.Under his watch, three men were exonerated of their crimes, based on shoddy work undertaken by this lab. During the sentencing phase of Rob’s trial, when the jurors listen to mitigating evidence, and any evidence that points to the possibility of Rob being a future danger to the public, D.A. Rosenthal made the following statement:“…it goes to the fact that what we really learned from September 11th is that evil exists in this world. If we didn’t know it before, we know it now. And we know the embodiment evil came out and has manifested itself in Robert Gene Will, II.” APPEALSRob’s trial and appeals process were riddled with incompetency on the part of his legal team. His lawyers either had little or no experience in defending capital cases or did not remain on record long enough to accomplish anything of substance. At trial, both attorneys failed to provide Rob with adequate counsel. They did not speak to key witnesses because the investigator they employed was unwilling to locate and interview these people.Rob’s first appeal attorney filed his appeal before even receiving the trial transcripts despite the fact that he was not present at his trial. One appeal attorney filed a brief where two thirds of his brief was “word-for-word identical, right down to the capitalization error on page 17” to one that he had previously filed for another Texas death row inmate, Angel Maturino Resendiz, a notorious serial killer executed in 2006. The brief was only 28 pages, exceedingly short for a capital habeas brief. Both writs failed to mention Resendiz or Rob by name or refer to their trials and listed incorrect conviction dates for both men. It should be noted that the attorney was suffering from Parkinson's disease and admits he was suffering from the effects of this at the time he was tasked with Rob's appeal. He was later removed from the list of state approved appellate attorneys due to this. However, it was too late for Rob who's chance at direct appeal had already been destroyed. Currently, Rob is nearing his final stage of appeals. After his state habeas appeal was denied, Rob moved into the Federal District Court and a new federal habeas attorney was appointed. This attorney filed a woefully inadequate writ which was subsequently denied. Although issuing a denial the US District Court Judge wrote the following in 2012:“The questions raised about Will’s actual innocence create disturbing uncertainties… This Court does not approach this dismissal lightly. Will has repeatedly and persistently argued that [the co-defendant] killed Deputy Hill… Will has submitted no less than 5 witnesses who have stated that [the co-defendant] confessed to murdering Deputy Hill. Beyond that, the trial court's exclusion of [a] testimony linking [the co-defendant] to the murder was almost certainly error of grave proportion. Moreover, as set forth in the Court's Memorandum and Order of May 25, 2010, the presence in the trial courtroom of so many uniformed policemen would have likely justified post-trial relief had the issue arisen on direct appeal rather than in a petition for habeas corpus. On top of the considerable evidence supporting Will's innocence and the important errors in the trial court, there must also be addressed the total absence of eyewitness testimony or strongly probative forensic evidence. With facts such as these, and only circumstantial evidence supporting Will's conviction and death sentence, the Court laments the strict limitations placed upon it…. Within the narrow borders of federal review, this Court has allowed liberal exploration of Will's various arguments. The questions raised during post-judgment factual development about Will's actual innocence create disturbing uncertainties that, under federal habeas jurisprudence, the Court is powerless to address." The Judge is saying that if by late-stage appeals, no matter what evidence have come forward, there is nothing he can do, and he is procedurally barred from giving and/or adding weight to actual innocence evidence. The following Writ was filed with new counsel covering the evidence in more detail. Click here to view full version. In 2012, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that resulted in Rob’s case being remanded back to earlier courts for consideration. MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTSOn September 26th, 2018, the District Court unfortunately reconfirmed that despite “the troubling possibility of Robert Will’s actual innocence”, under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA, 1996), the court did not have the jurisdiction to consider Rob’s petition for an Emergency Motion for Relief. This has followed several years of back and forth through the courts to consider the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trevino v. Martinez and Brady v. Maryland, and their applications to Rob’s case in regards to ineffective assistance of counsel and Prosecution hiding evidence that could have resulted in a different decision from the jury. In a rare and sympathetic four-page order, the Judge repeatedly voices his concerns regarding Rob’s innocence but reiterates that under the AEDPA, he does not have the jurisdiction to grant relief: "This Court has repeatedly expressed deep concern for the factually complex insinuations that Will may be innocent of the crime for which he faces a death sentence. The Court is particularly sensitive to the absence of any direct evidence of Will’s guilt, and the number of witnesses who aver that another man confessed to the underlying murder." The order can be viewed in full here. Rob’s case will now proceed to the notoriously conservative 5th Circuit of Appeals. Should he be denied, he could very well receive a execution date in the near future. PLEA FOR HELP The clock is ticking for Rob’s fight for justice and to save his life. Media coverage, legal help, funds and support are desperately needed at this time. According to recent studies, it's estimated 10% of inmates on death row are likely innocent. Without intervention, this will undoubtedly end in the execution of an innocent man. Please consider joining us in fighting for Rob’s life. CONTACT INFORMATIONIf you would like to get involved or cover Rob’s story, please e-mail us at email@example.com. Visit freerobwill.org for more information.
Petition to Kevin Stitt, Matt Pinnell, The Oklahoman, Tulsa World, KFOR-TV Channel 4, KOCO-TV Channel 5, KOKH-TV , The Hon. David Holt
Free Daniel Holtzclaw, an innocent man wrongfully convicted!
On Jan. 21, 2016, our son, brother, and friend Daniel Holtzclaw, an Oklahoma City police officer, was sentenced to 263 years in prison after a jury wrongfully convicted him of sexually assaulting seven women and one teenager, despite the fact that no physical evidence of crime was found, patrol car Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) data failed to match crucial accusations, numerous discrepancies occurred in the accusers' testimony, and detectives gathered almost all of the accusers (ten out of thirteen) by selectively seeking out and questioning only African American women with histories of prostitution or drug use with whom Daniel had interacted during his routine police duties. Daniel Holtzclaw is innocent and was wrongfully convicted of crimes he never committed. Daniel put his life on the line daily as a police officer for the justice he served and also deserved in his trial but was denied. Please sign our petition to urge Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, Lieutenant Governor Matt Pinnell, the Hon. David Holt (Mayor of Oklahoma City), and Oklahoma news media to investigate the police misconduct and mishandling of Daniel's case that led to his convictions for multiple sexual assaults he did not commit, and to respectfully request that Governor Stitt grant clemency by exonerating Daniel because he is innocent. You can learn more about who Daniel Holtzclaw is by visiting www.FreeDanielHoltzclaw.com. The evidence supports Daniel's innocence. The only forensic finding linking Daniel to any accuser in the entire trial was DNA from a 17-year-old teenager who said the officer searched her purse, pat searched her, then raped her, yet the prosecution's own DNA analyst acknowledged the evidence was consistent with non-intimate, indirect transfer of skin cell DNA, such as from the purse to the officer's hands, then to his uniform pants while using the restroom. The State's forensic analyst failed to disclose during the trial that all four DNA samples from the fly of the uniform pants also included DNA from at least one male, which supports the non-intimate transfer explanation. The DNA did NOT derive from semen. No DNA matching any other accuser besides the 17-year-old girl was found on the fly of Daniel's uniform pants, which police detectives took on June 18, 2014, along with his belt as their only evidence from Daniel. This was just hours after Daniel's night shift during which detectives eventually claimed he sexually assaulted not just the teenager through the unzipped fly of the buckled uniform pants, but also two other individuals including Jannie Ligons, whose unsubstantiated accusations sparked the investigation targeting Daniel. No vaginal fluid was seen on the fly of Daniel's uniform pants by the State's forensic analyst, who used a very bright light and a magnifying glass. Only the fly area of Daniel's uniform pants was tested for DNA, and the uniform pants were NOT tested for saliva, semen, or vaginal fluid to determine the source of the DNA, even though “in legal proceedings, a proper and reliable determination of the source of isolated DNA is essential and an error in identification may result in grave legal consequences” (Jakubowska et al. (2011) Problems of Forensic Sciences, 87: 204-215). Despite these facts, Prosecutor Gayland Gieger claimed falsely during his closing argument that it was a "fact" that DNA from the walls of the teenager's vagina "was transferred in vaginal fluids" (Transcript p. 4307). Prosecutor Gieger also claimed falsely after the trial that "the skin cells were transferred through the body fluids of a 17-year-old girl after he raped her. That's what the evidence was, that's what the jury heard, and certainly that's what they convicted him of. They [the defense] tried to explain DNA from a 17-year-old girl that ends up inside his pants at the areas where his privates are. Quite frankly, their explanation was not believable because you can't explain that" (Erielle Reshef, KOKO 5 News, "Prosecutors who helped convict Daniel Holtzclaw speak,” Feb. 5, 2016). In reality, article after article has shown that skin cell DNA can transfer indirectly ("secondary" or "tertiary" transfer) from a person, via intermediaries, to an object without any direct contact. If DNA on the fly of your pants were evidence of a crime, then every one of us could be convicted. As early as 2010, forensic researchers reported their discovery that DNA can transfer from a woman through non-intimate social contact to a man's hands, and then to his underpants and even genitals during urination, such that her DNA will be found on a penile swab (Hulme, J. (2010) Science and Justice, 50: 100-109). This research was recently corroborated by Jones et al. (2016) DNA transfer through nonintimate social contact, Science and Justice, 56: 90-95. Prosecutor Gieger not only misrepresented the DNA evidence from the 17-year-old girl, but also did not fully inform the jury about exculpatory evidence that challenged her credibility. Just months after the teenager accused Daniel of sexually assaulting her, this same young woman, A.G., was arrested for using a machete to attack a man on June 10, 2015, after she claimed to police that the man had used the weapon to assault her but “police were not convinced she was telling the truth since she did not appear to have any injuries” (Dallas Franklin, KFOR.com, “Man allegedly attacked at home, 2 arrested,” June 11, 2015). A.G., who similarly accused Daniel of a heinous crime, was booked for assault with a deadly weapon, and on April 18, 2016, she pleaded guilty to two other violent crimes, including domestic assault and battery (Muskogee OK - Case CM-2015-00199 and Case CF-2016-00031). None of the accusations against Daniel Holtzclaw were supported by any solid evidence of crime. No evidence, for example, supported the first accusation targeting Daniel, which occurred on June 18, 2014, when Daniel performed an off-duty traffic stop of the swerving car with tinted windows that prevented him from seeing the occupant at 2 a.m. that morning. The driver, Jannie Ligons, had lacked a valid license for more than 30 years and later admitted to police that, before driving, she had taken sleep-inducing PM medication and smoked marijuana, which can cause paranoia and hallucinations. She said she placed her hands on the hood of the patrol car while Daniel pat searched her, then she sat in the backseat of the patrol car. Here, she said, Daniel procured lewd exhibition and orally sodomized her through the fly of his pants, with his hands on the car's roof. She also said that Daniel touched her phone. The SANE exam of Jannie Ligons came back negative. No DNA, sperm, or seminal fluid from Daniel was found in or around Ms. Ligons' mouth. No DNA match to Ms. Ligons was found on the fly of his uniform pants. No fingerprints or DNA from Ms. Ligons or Daniel were found on the patrol car's hood or roof to corroborate her claims. No DNA from Daniel was found on her phone, but the DNA from Ms. Ligons and some unknown individual was, showing that DNA does indeed transfer from people to things they touch. No pubic hair or DNA from Daniel was found inside the patrol car, and the surveillance video of the traffic stop, which was too far away to display fine details, showed no wrongdoing. Although the police detectives were investigating a sexual assault, the only evidence they took from Daniel was his uniform pants and belt. Detectives did not even take Daniel's underwear, and they never issued a search warrant for his home, personal car, or phone to obtain evidence which could have been used to help support Daniel's innocence. What the male detective did do is put his bare hand in the evidence bag, which can lead to DNA contamination. Daniel answered all the detectives' questions and asked them to analyze his DNA as quickly as possible so that he could clear his name. Daniel also agreed to take a polygraph test, an offer that the jury was never allowed to hear. Daniel Holtzclaw has maintained his innocence since the very beginning, June 18, 2014, when police detectives first questioned Daniel and claimed, untruthfully, that they had found pubic hairs in his patrol car and had incriminating surveillance video of the traffic stop Daniel performed that morning at the end of his shift. Despite the lack of evidence, and even though Ms. Ligons had no history of criminal convictions or warrants for her arrest and the traffic stop of her car with dark-tinted windows at night could not have resulted from any knowledge that the occupant was African American, police detectives concocted a theory that Daniel targeted African American women with histories of prostitution and drugs such that they would be too afraid to report alleged sexual crimes for fear of not being believed. Police detectives then searched for more accusers by selectively contacting over 40 African American females with histories of prostitution or drug arrests with whom Daniel had interacted during his routine police duties, which often involved intervening in cases of drug use and prostitution in the lower income neighborhood he patrolled. Any black woman who had been stopped by Daniel because of her drug use or prostitution would have a chance to make allegations against the young police officer who had tried to halt her criminal activities. ALMOST 98% OF THE INDIVIDUALS QUESTIONED BY DETECTIVES WERE AFRICAN AMERICAN FEMALES, showing that detectives, not Daniel, were the ones who targeted black females with criminal histories of prostitution or drug use. Detectives solicited testimony by telling these women that police had received a “tip” that the women “may have been sexually assaulted by a police officer,” which was blatant leading of potential witnesses. In one case, the police detective actually called the officer a "very bad guy" with "lots of victims" before a woman identified him after she first denied seven times that any officer had treated her inappropriately, and she stated, "There's only one officer that I know a few years back: he was a black cop, he used to come around here, and he exposed his self to me." The police department and news media at this time were also broadcasting information about Daniel as a suspect, including showing his face, such that the people in the neighborhood he had patrolled knew he was under suspicion. In this wrongful manner that encouraged false allegations, the police thus found 10 individuals, including the 17-year-old A.G., who made accusations that were used to charge Daniel with sexual assault. This gave a total of 13 accusers including the three black women who reported a crime on their own: the initial female driver (Jannie Ligons, whose allegations were never substantiated), another woman who came forward to claim the officer had sexually assaulted her in the hospital room after she overdosed on PCP (Daniel was found not guilty of her accusations), and a third woman who reported that she had been sexually assaulted but could not positively identify the officer (Daniel was also found not guilty of her accusations). Seven other individuals, including one man, claimed the officer had sexually assaulted them, but their allegations were deemed too absurd or simply impossible (such as not matching Daniel's work schedule) to result in charges, and they recanted when confronted with evidence that they were lying. One of those individuals, Shaneice Barksdale, admitted in a videotaped police interview that she had made up her allegations to try to help the case and was convicted of falsely reporting a crime (State of Oklahoma v. Shaneice Barksdale, Case No. CM-2015-1413). Research by acclaimed eyewitness expert, Dr. Gary L. Wells, has shown that eyewitnesses' memories of events can be altered by suggestion and positive feedback, often leading to wrongful convictions. The validity of accusers' testimony in Daniel's trial should not have been accepted as fact, not only because of the leading, suggestive manner in which police detectives found accusers until they had a total of thirteen, but also because at least five of the accusers knew each other, and many of the women were using hallucinogenic drugs (cocaine, crack, PCP, marijuana) at the time they alleged Daniel assaulted them, which could cause them to accuse an innocent man of actions he did not commit. Major inconsistencies existed in the accusers' testimony that ruled Daniel out as a suspect. For example, one woman, S.E., stated that her assailant was a short black man who stopped his patrol car in a public park/abandoned school yard, and then raped her for 5-10 minutes. Yet Daniel Holtzclaw is a tall, light-skinned, Japanese American man, and, significantly, the AVL/GPS evidence from Daniel's patrol car shows that it could only have been motionless in the school yard for less than 4 minutes, simply not enough time to do as was alleged. Nevertheless, Daniel was found guilty of her accusations. Another woman, R.G., with multiple felony convictions, said that the officer orally sodomized her on a day when she was getting high off of crack cocaine, and she said she wiped Daniel's alleged secretions from the oral sodomy onto her chair, yet Daniel's DNA was not found on the woman's chair, while the DNA from two other men was. Despite this lack of evidence, Daniel was found guilty of forcible oral sodomy. We believe the legal system has failed Daniel miserably and a travesty of justice has occurred. You can learn more about the injustices in Daniel's trial by visiting www.FreeDanielHoltzclaw.com, a website created by Daniel's sister Jenny Holtzclaw, where donations for Daniel's legal fees are gratefully being accepted. You can also learn more about Daniel's case at www.HoltzclawTrial.com, a website created by former defense private investigator, Brian Bates, who is posting online the facts presented in open court that the media did not report. Please sign our petition urging Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, Lt. Gov. Matt Pinnell, other officials, and the Oklahoma news media to investigate the police misconduct and mishandling of Daniel's case that led to his convictions for multiple sexual assaults he did not commit, and respectfully requesting that Governor Stitt grant clemency by exonerating Daniel because he is innocent. Daniel belongs with his family, not in prison for crimes he never committed. Please help right this wrong by signing our petition to free Daniel Holtzclaw. Sincerely and with our deepest gratitude, Daniel's family and friends
Petition to Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, Johnny Isakson
Federal Pardon of Steven Avery & Brendan Dassey
The Nation Demands Federal Relief & Support To Pardon Steven Avery & Brendan Dassey Immediately ATTENTION: President Trump, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Senator Johnny Issakson; Dear Sirs, Former President, Barack Obama (D), FAILED to pardon Avery & Dassey when a petition reached the White House following the release of Netflix’s Making a Murderer December 15, 2015. The pardons were ultimately denied by President Obama because active appeals were filed for both men incarcerated in Wisconsin at the state level & required that any post relief remedy was to be reviewed and met by the state. Wisconsin’s current State Attorney General Brad Schimel & Governor Scott Walker have both stood firmly behind its Department of Justice and the decisions made to uphold the convictions of those deemed responsible for the alleged ‘Intentional Homicide’ of Teresa Halbach on October 30, 2005. However, there is adequate reasoning to submit a new Introduction to Request Immediate Relief & Support From A Federal Pardon, that is warranted and based on ‘New Evidence’ not filed in the current 2017 appeals. The evidence strongly supports Criminal Offenses enacted on by Government Officials in the Wisconsin State Capitol. It should be dutifully noted, for the record, that a Federal Ivestigation into the former Wisconsin State Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager, (D) 2003-2007, will show sufficient evidence Steven Avery was framed by Lautenschlager, herself. HISTORY OF UNETHICAL GOVERNOR OFFICIAL NAMED HEREIN; In 1993, Lautenschlager was handpicked by Bill Clinton to be a US Attorney General for Wisconsin and was trained by the Clinton Administration. Lautenschlager would sequentially be elected to serve on a Task force with Janet Reno. This position was Federal and seated Lautenschlager to work with numerous Sheriffs throughout the state of Wisconsin from 1996-2001. While seated to this position, before being elected by the citizens to serve as Wisconsin’s State Attorney General from 2003-2007, Lautenschlager formed a personal relationship with a former Sheriff of Manitowoc County deemed partly responsible for sending Steven Avery to prison in 1985. Upon Avery’s exoneration on September 11, 2003, Lautenschlager abused her power of position to protect her personal friends working in Law Enforcement named in a $36,000,000 Civil Suit filed by Avery on October 12, 2004. 1) Lautenschlager released a Report that started protecting those involved in Avery’s 1985 Conviction on December 17, 2003. 2) December 22, 2003, Mark Gundrum created the Avery Task Force to start preventing wrongful convictions. Lautenschlager initially wanted no part of it, and purposely begin backlogging the State Crime Lab, so that others innocent like Steven Avery couldn’t get out of prison. 3) 2 months later, Lautenschlager received a DUI on February 22, 2004. To save face politically, she then joined The Avery Task Force. However, Lautenschlager objected to the Bills being written by the 20 member bipartisan group seated, made of Senators, Judges, Prosecutors, Attorneys, Sheriffs & State Crime Lab personnel. 4) On August 31, 2005, Lautenschlager took over The Avery Task Force, renaming it to the Criminal Justice Study Commission. (Avery’s name was taken out of it because it was beneficial to Avery’s $36,000,000 civil suit.) 5) The Charter Statement of this Commission blatantly highlighted that Manitowoc County Officials were NOT to be blamed for Avery’s 1985 Conviction. (Lautenschlager had an ongoing feud with Governor Jim Doyle because Doyle was going to be signing off on the upcoming Assembly & Senate Bills in November 2005. The Bills reflected the issues in Avery’s Civil Suit, giving him immense favor of winning.) 6) The Commission was supposed to prevent future wrongful convictions by eliminating Tunnel Vision, Jailhouse Snitches, Contaminated DNA, Faltering Witness Statements & botched Juvenile Monitoring Recordings in Custodial Recordings. 7) During numerous Attorney General Seminars in September 2005, Lautenschlager published and distributed phamplets to Law Enforcement Officials stating how to prevent the issues listed in item 6), above. However, Lautenschlager demanded and allowed that Law Enforcement Officials were to use these issues against Steven Avery; whereas, November 3, 2005, a report was filed for a missing Teresa Halbach, with Law Enforcement Officials claiming Steven Avery was the last to see her on October 31, 2005; in which, all issues listed in item 6) above are manipulated in this case as follows: A) Manitowoc Officials named in the Civil Suit zeroed in on Avery immediately enacting “Tunnel Vision; B) A jailhouse snitch reported Avery planned on making a torture chamber to rape women when he was released. The problem with this story, Avery never knew he was even getting out. DNA miraculously freed him 18 years into a 30+ year sentence. The jailhouse snitch’s testimony was fabricated to match the later rape statements coerced by Brendan Dassey. C. Numerous witnesses faltered in their stories, that were inconsistent with actions of Avery, Dassey, & Halbach transpiring on the date of October 31, 2005, and the days immediately following. D. Lautenschlager signed off on a bullet fragment contaminated by Sherry Culhane on 4/12/2006, to be admited in Avery’s trial. D2) Weeks later, On 5/5/2006, Lautenschlager released a statement on the state’s Crime Lab and NIBIN Program protecting the lab for entering a .22 Caliber shell to the program. The .22 Caliber round was prohibited from being submitted if fired by a pistol or a rifle. Lautenschlager manipulated the article to say “Pistol Only” because the murder weapon used on Halbach was allegedly a .22 Marlin rifle in Avery’s possession. In fact, it wouldnt be until Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen released an article in February 2014, stating Wisconsin DOJ had just purchased a new NIBIN instrument that now accepted .22 Rifle and Pistol calibers, along with shotguns. Lautenschlager had lied in 2005, so the science on the ballistics of the bullets allegedly fired from a “rifle” would be allowed in Avery’s trial. E) Lautenschlager released a Model Policy on Custodial Interrogations on 2/23/2006. The policy was to protect juvenile children with disabilities from being interrogated without an adult present. E2) However, 6 days later, 3/01/2006, Brendan Dassey would become the first Juvenile recorded in Wisconsin by a mandated state law. The law was actually written by a member of Lautenschlager’s Commission. Dassey was interrogated by DCI Special Agent Tom Fassbender. The confession has since been reviewed as Coerced by numerous Federal Judges To Date. Fassbender was appropriately trained on December 6, 9 & 12, 2005, on how to handle this new Custodial Law, yet he failed. It should be noted, Lautenschlager was basically Fassbender’s main Supervisor. E3) Dassey was coerced into saying Teresa Halbach was shot in Avery’s garage. The bullet fragment that was contaminated by Culhane when tested on 4/12/2006, was found 3/2/2006, in the early AM after beginning a search the night of Dassey’s confession on 3/01/2006. Another DCI Special Agent, had turned off the video camera, looked down, and discovered the bullet when the video camera was conviently no longer recording. The search of the garage had already ended. E4) Not only did Lautenschlager release a model policy on 2/23/2006 that stated NOT to interrogate a child with a disability without a parent present, (done by a recently trained Fassbender 3/01/2006), but when a bullet magically stems from the search of Avery’s garage off camera, immediately after Dassey’s coerced confession, Lautenschlager protected the .22 caliber prohibited from being entered into NIBIN, even after signing off on the contamination of it. 8) Whereas; in items A-E4, Lautenschlager has knowingly allowed both the State Crime Lab & Special Agents of the DCI to manipulate and fabricate testimony and forensic evidence to falsify convictions on both Steven Avery & Brendan Dassey. 9) Lautenschlager’s very Commission was to protect Avery and Dassey from the very things that arrested them, that were current issues of her Commission. Strongly supporting the evidence, that if these issues were relative to Lautenschlager’s knowledge and manipulation prior to Halbach’s death & become factors of Steven Avery’s Investigation, then it is apparent Lautenschlager advised the manipulation of the issues she already had a remedy for, yet failed to step in. 10) The Wisconsin New Governance Experiment passed by Wisconsin Legislation gave Lautenschlager the authority on a Jurisdiction by Jurisdiction basis to immediately protect both Avery and Dassey, because they were victims of the issues being tackled on The Criminal Justice Study Commission, she spearheaded. 11) During the pretrial phase of both Avery and Dassey, in 2006, Assistant Attorney General Thomas J. Fallon was sent in from Lautenschlager’s Office. Yet, no remedy is ever applied by the Attorney General’s Office to protect Dassey or Avery, even with Fallon knowing the actions of Lautenschlager to be criminal. Fallon has since gone on to dupe Wisconsin State Attorney Generals J.B. Van Hollen in a 2010-2011 Appeal, & Brad Schimel more recently in the 2016-2017 Appeal. The petitioners herein, for the record, submit the findings to the appropriated Federal Department that Lautenschlager knowingly manipulated the forensic evidence and testimonies in this case. Lautenschlager’s motive to harm both Steven Avery & Brendan Dassey intentionally is means of a severe criminal intent, that should NOT go unpunished, nor left without review of and by a Federal Department outside of Wisconsin. The petitioners herein, seek immediate investigation into Lautenschlager’s actions and demands that they be reviewed for immediate post conviction relief for Avery & Dassey. Lautenschlager has remained silent for 12 years, and will NOT speak out about the Halbach Case. However, she will continue to state for the record Manitowoc County did NOT wrongfully convict Steven Avery in 1985. The petitioners herein, ask for Immediate Federal Relief by Pardoning Avery & Dassey in the event Lautenschlager is found guilty to any degree of tampering with, falsifying, manipulating and/or approving any contaminated evidence or testimony admitted into either trial, to the slightest degree. Signed by citizens of this good Nation, Respectively, The Watching World
Petition to Governor of the State of Illinois
Tony Enis, a innocent man behind bars over 30 years. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Over 30 years of unjust incarceration … Enough! Meet Tony Enis My name is Tony Enis. I was born in Waukegan Illinois, where I grew up. I have been in prison since August of 1987 just one month short of my 21st Birthday. It was then that I was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death row until 2003. I HAVE ALWAYS MAINTAINED MY INNOCENCE. I realize better than anyone the skepticism and doubt with which people veiw proclamations of innocence, but I will not allow the doubters and nay-sayers to discourage me. I am propelled by the truth and must stay the course. I am one of what I believe are many innocent men formally on death row and now in prison in Illinois. Some have made it out, but there remains those of us who continue to fight for our lives our liberty, those of us that fight the unyielding forces of racial discrimination in "our justice system". Those of us who fight for a level playing field, as well as our human dignity and respect. Being poor, black or brown should never give the system carte blanch to destroy the lives of men and women for crimes they did not commit. Still if you do not know me, you can not be sure if my words ring true. I understand that, so I ask of you to examine and judge the facts presented to you on this website, and particularly in my draft request for clemency that I intend to eventually file to the Governor. If those facts move you in some way, if they make you angry, if they make you sad, if they evoke compassion, sympathy or empathy, then I ask you to sign the online petition to show your support ( see request for clemency petition ) and or write a letter or email to the Governor of Illinois and implore him to look into my case; show him there are those who believe I am innocent; that I am deserving of my freedom; that I am not a danger to society and 30 years is enough. For those who took the time to read about me, I am humbled by your concern, compassion, and willingness to seek the truth. I thank you. In closing I'd like to quote John F. Kennedy " The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened." Tony Anthony Enis (Tony to his friends) was convicted in 1987 of murder and sentenced to death. Due to prosecutorial misconduct, his conviction and sentence were overturned by the Illinois Supreme Court, and he was granted a new trial. Unfortunately and unfairly, he was again convicted and sentenced to death. Like many people in prison, Tony has been wrongfully convicted and has suffered over 30 years of unjust incarceration due to very poor legal representation and a highly flawed legal system. Tony has always maintained his innocence of this crime. When the crime was committed Tony was at home with his ex wife Diane (Gonzalez) Vaughn, who to this day proclaims he is innocent and supports his fight to gain his freedom. Tony was on death row until 2003 when the Illinois Governor George Ryan became gravely concerned about the number of death row inmates who were proven to be innocent. After an intense year long investigation into the matter, Governor Ryan commuted the death sentence for every person on death row. A few were pardoned, a few were sentenced to a number of years, but the vast majority were sentenced to natural life imprisonment. Tony has been serving a life sentence ever since. The purpose of this website is to present some of the facts of Tony's case and allow you to begin to get to know Tony, not as a statistic but as a human being. It is also an opportunity to show the Governor of Illinois that you support Tony so that true justice is served and an innocent man does not spend the rest of his life in prison. Tony is seeking a pardon from the governor, or alternatively a commutation of his sentence that will set him free. The full and complete Petition for Executive Clemency and more detailed information about Tony's case are available at: www.freetonyenis.com Volunteers are welcome to print this information and collect additional signatories to join in petitioning the governor. By signing this petition the undersigned agrees to join and petition the governor of Illinois to pardon or commute the sentence of Anthony (Tony) Enis, who is currently serving at Menard Correctional Center. For more information or to help or support Tony, contact: Tony Enis #N82931 Menard CC PO Box 1000 Menard, IL 62259; or www.connectnetwork.com (Anthony Enis N82931); firstname.lastname@example.org Tony has been incarcerated for over 30 years for a crime he did NOT commit … enough is enough! He asks you to consider his words with an open heart and an open mind and decide for yourself. Thank you for your time and your compassion.
Petition to Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Attorney General Dana Nessel, Mayor Mike Duggan, James Craig, Kym Worthy, Federal Prosecuting Attorney Matthew Schneider
Immediate release of innocent Darrell R. Ewing
http://voiceofdetroit.net/ This Petition calls for the dismissal of all charges, complete exoneration and immediate release of Darrell R. Ewing, who has been wrongfully Incarcerated 3,611 days and counting for a crime he did not commit, and who was recently ordered a new trial, October, 24th, 2019, by the Hon. Michael Hathaway of the 3rd Circuit Court, following revelation into the juror misconduct at his original 2010 trial, on top of a confession by the real culprit, Tyree Washington, who federal authorities alerted the Wayne County Prosecutors office to prior to trial, warning Kym Worthy a mistake was being made.Were seeking 5,000 signatures in support of petitioning Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Attorney General Dana Nessel, Mayor Mike Duggan, Detroit Police Chief James Craig, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy and Federal Prosecuting Attorney Matthew Schneider to finally let Justice ring for not only Ewing, his family and supporters, but also the family and loved ones of the deceased and the surviving victims who deserve closure and that they all in conjunction owe that too. PLEASE CLICK ON, SIGN, POST AND RE-POST!!!! For our son today, your son tomorrow, if we don't stand united against this injustice that's becoming normal practice just see "How They See Us" and turn on your T.V where a wrongful conviction is being covered everyday. Kym Worthy email to it, email@example.com, Police Chief James Craig @ firstname.lastname@example.org, Valerie Newman @ email@example.com and look up Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Attorney General Dana Nessel and Federal Eastern District Prosecutor Matthew Schneider Kim K.-West, T.I, Meek Mill, TYler Perry, Dr. Phil, Rihanna and Nick Cannon we need yall help shedding light on this injustice and the release of a innocent man
Petition to President of the United States, Andrew M. Cuomo, U.S. House of Representatives, Pennsylvania State House, Maria Cantwell
Force government to investigate wrongful convictions/ Those involve in the conviction.
To investigate states across the united states that convict without proper investigation and tangible proof of wrongful doing.!!! My friend Nelson Martinez Jr has been convicted of grave charges and despicable charges his name has been slandered. He has appealed to the Police administration to the courts in P.A and the department of justice and to the FBI besides his lawyers and the judge on the case to produce the records of the actual person who did the crime and nothing has been done, so I ask for this change to make it so no one ever has to endure this situation again.
Petition to Iowa State House, Joni Ernst, Iowa Governor, Iowa DCI, Polk County Attorney Iowa, Iowa Department of Justice
Further investigation needed in this case and as to why the mother wasn’t charged.
In November of 2014 my son Joe Lopez was staying with his girlfriend in her basement apartment. In the early morning hours of the 29th he woke up to his girlfriend daughter crying. He got up to see what was wrong and if he could help her. He took her to the kitchen and placed her in her highchair without buckling her in. He fed her then left her alone to go to the bathroom. While in the bathroom he hears a thump/smack then runs out to find the child on the floor unconscious, gasping for air. He goes to the next room to awaken the mother and let her know something is wrong and they must go to the emergency. At the emergency he runs in with injured child while mother parks her car. The child never recovers from her injuries and sadly she dies December 3rd! Doctors and investigators ALLEGED that he attacked the child. That he shook and slammed her all while the mother was “sleeping” in the next room! It was proven during trial that the mother was not sleeping and awake using her cell phone. If said attack did take place she would’ve heard something! Being that the mother was there, in the home, in the next room that’s only about 4 steps away, she should be charged! They used the fact that he was the last one (alone) with the child when in all reality he wasn’t because she was there. They used the fact that he didn’t call 911, well neither did the mother! They used the fact that he was the one to take the child into emergency room because he wanted his story to be told first all while mother was more worried about parking her car! What mother worries more about parking her car than her injured child?! They used the fact that he was stressed from having no job or a place to live well neither did she. Yes he didn’t have a job but did have a place to stay! She was unemployed and being evicted from her apartment and had nowhere to go. Not even to her family! Lopez was charged with first degree murder and child endangerment resulting in death. All the stressors used to charge and convict Lopez can also be used to charge the mother. Since this case there have been a few more cases like this here in Iowa. In those cases both caretakers were arrested and charged. What makes this case any different?