Exhibits‎ > ‎exhibit5‎ > ‎

exhibit 5a

 

TESTIMONY TO THE JURY

SGT. ALEXANDER:  On the how and why of the S.L.Co. Sheriff’s Office, No-Knock Policy(s).  (after a little bickering on the right way to ask this question)

 Starting at (Trial record) TR: page 69, lines:

13- Q.  I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOUR HABIT AND CUSTOM IS?

 15- ….WE ALWAYS MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT ON THESE TYPE OF SEARCH WARRANTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IDENTIFICATION OF OUR SELVES AS BEING IN THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE, PROTECTING OURSELVES AND GIVING NOTIFICATION TO THOSE PEOPLE INSIDE….    Except in Buck, Miller and those in Exhibit 6

 Page 74

22- WE ANNOUNCE OUR SELVES AT POINT OF ENTRY…. But see what he is saying here[1].

 Page 83-4

12- …WE HAVE ALWAYS, EVEN THOUGH WE HAD A NO-KNOCK WARRANT, DID NOT NEED TO GIVE NOTICE OF AUTHORITY, WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE IT.  

 25/1- IT’S DONE ON A SIMULTANEOUS ACTION.  {with the kick}    (see Exhibits 1, 2, and 6)

 

 OFFICER RIGBY, (who requested and got this NO-KNOCK Warrant)  testimony of the How & Whys:  

Pages 102-3

24- Q.  WHY WOULD YOU ASK FOR THE AUTHORITY TO ENTER WITHOUT ANNOUNCING AND THEN ANNOUNCE?

 1- OFFICER SAFETY, NUMBER ONE.  SUSPECT SAFETY NUMBER TWO.   (see Buck, WhiteWilson and Exhibit 6g) (or Exhibit 6h for nation wide)

 2- …I DON’T THINK WE HAVE EVER IN ALL THE YEARS THAT I’VE DONE THESE AND SERVED NO-KNOCK WARRANTS WITHOUT ANNOUNCING EVER.   (see all of Exhibit 6)  And yet when describing the sequence of events that night he omits any “officer identification”.  He had to be reminded/asked “Did you hear anything?”  “Did I hear anything?”  Yes.”  “Oh! yeah”  (Then he gets his “announcement” in at TR: 95-6). 

 

Even worse. After all of this officer perjury, the prosecutor then goes on to tell the jury in closing at TR: 252 “The announcement for policy reasons, for safety reasons.”  And at TR: 267 “Don’t think for a moment that the sheriff’s office and the police department have not analyzed the situation from view point of officer safety.” 
All a long knowing these to be false statements (of facts and the law)   

 

These are all pretty strong and prejudicial statements/evidence against me[2], how they ALWAYS blah, blah….  Now then if I can come up with say a dozen affidavits (like in Exhibit 6), a couple of court cases (like in Exhibit 1) and a State Statute (77-23-10.2)[3] showing that these officers are liars, perjurers and non-credible as witnesses on the whole?  Where is the credibility of them as men or witnesses, let alone as representatives of the State?  Where is the credibility and/or integrity of this proceeding or in this conviction?  Where are criminal charges against these officers and prosecutor?  -For this perjury, abuse of power and intentional obstruction of justice, or does abuse of power, perjury and obstruction of justice apply only to presidential blowjobs for political gains (and not to the real world of life/ liberties and freedom from wrongful conviction) 
 
                                                   (Next, page 8)

 


[1] At TR: 72-73 (on page 10).  He said he was saying "deputy Rigby" [to Rigby] (now,I'm a little confused here, the time is short, are you YELLING/Annoucing, or saying "deputy Rigby" through all this 'Loud Announcing'??)

[2] Are they lying to this Court and jury to cover-up and get a conviction/obstruct justice, in these above statements?  Or lied to the first Court and judge to get this warrant?  (That he/they are not going to use and never have used, as he swears to in all his/their affidavits.  Do all cops routinely lie in their efforts to get search warrants?)  Furthermore the prosecutor (and judge) has to know that they are lying to this jury.  (He/they can’t knowingly allow this B.S.!) 

[2] Check out it’s legislative history; because of "fear that physical harm may result to any person if notice were given." 

 

Comments