Ignored Case Law

But first-
Pretty much every petition or motion I wrote the court I would tell them that I was Pro Se without help or benefit of counsel [and requested appointment of counsel] and also tell them that all of this arises initially out of my request for an Evidentiary Hearing on my new evidence and proof of wrong/false PERJURED police testimony my conviction was based on and then assign blame later ( to a locked down inmate it doesn’t make much difference,  if it’s labeled Police Perjury and/or their intentional obstruction of justice, Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel or just in the interest of justice, New evidence, or whatever) as long as a new and fair trial is granted/ required . 

I would tell them that you have to read my whole, complete complaint and allegations (statement of facts, arguments and supporting documents).  That you can not simply judge this on its face, (or my Picasso approach to writ writing) nor can you rely on the old incorrect/ incomplete court record (based on all the wrong/false and perjured testimony, also absent all the new [and withheld] evidence…).    And that my strongest merit comes out of Kuhlmann v Wilson, 106 SCt at 2626, 477 US 436, at 453, “A prisoner retains a powerful and legitimate interest in obtaining his release from custody if he is innocent of the charge for which he is incarcerated”

The Courts also [seemingly] ignored all this Case Law that I brought up:

 *Robinson v Wade, 686 F2d 298, 302 (1982); Wallace v Lockhart, 701 F2d 719, 727 (cert denied) 464 US 943 (1983); Dickson v Wainwright, 683 F2d 348, 351-52 (1982) - Pro se petitions should be read liberally…  Also in State v Haston, 846 P2d 1276, 1277 said in part “that failing to consider defendants’ issues would constitute ‘manifest injustice’ because he was tardy, or unartful in raising the issue previously strikes us as manifestly unjust, … at the very least such action would deny defendant due process.”

Napue v Illinois, 360 US 264, 79 Sct 1173, 1217; US v Santana-Camacho, 833 F2d 371, 373-4; Mahorney v Wallman, 917 F2d 469, 474;  – a conviction obtained through the use of false evidence, known to be false [or should have known to be false] by such representatives of the state, must fall… The same if it allows it to go uncorrected when it appears [and/or on misstatements of the law] … New trial 

*Johnson v Texas, 878 F2d 904, 906 (1989) – Habeas is the appropriate method for Perjured testimony …  Mahorney v Wallman, Supra, Habeas relief available on prosecutors misstatements of the law  

(Also out of US v Auten, at 481 and Calley v Callaway, 519 F 184, 223- the prosecution is required to check/verify certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession … to do other wise would be inviting and placing a premium on conduct unworthy of [the State])

*US v Liebo, 923 F2d 1308, 1313-14 (1991);  *Larson v US, 24 F2d 82 (1928);  *US v Siddiqi, 959 F2d 1167, 1173-74 (1992) or Utah cases Halford, Campbell, Edmonds, Duncan…  -On newly discovered evidence (corroborating defendants testimony or pivotal to jury’s decision) …  New trial…      and also  in  ‘Larson’ - about false testimony given by a material witness …  New trial

(Also on newly discovered evidence see Newsom v US, 311F2d 74; Ledet v US, 297 F2d 737, 739 (62))

*Morales v US, 902 F2d 604, 606-09 (modified) 910 F2d 467 (1990)   -where if the testimonial evidence does not match the actual/physical evidence (especially in a harsh/long sentence) New trial

An Evidentiary Hearing is required where a factual question is raised under US v Alexander, 748 F2d at 193;  quoting US v Dansker, "Where the submission of written affidavits raises genuine issues of material facts (also prosecutorial misconduct could compel one, and where  specific guarantees of the bill of rights are involved needs one, see US v Hamilton; Griffin v California, 380 US 609)

*US v Reed 875 F2d 107, 113 (1989); US v Lincoln, 630 F2d 1313, 1319 (1980); *US v Rothrock, 806 F2d 318, 321-22 (1986) - If there is or even could be the possibility of a miscarriage of justice/ in the interest of justice, requires a new trial…    

*And Kuhlmann v Wilson, 106 S ct 2616 [petitioner] only needs a colorable showing of factual innocence.  They recognize the need in a free society for an additional safeguard against compelling an innocent person to suffer unconstitutional loss of liberty … Id 2631, 2626 … an innocent  person retains a  powerful and legitimate interest in obtaining justice/his release. 

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel *Strickland v Washington,  Profitt v Waldon, 831 F2d 1248, 1248-49; Nealy v Cabana, 764 F2d 1173, 1177 (1985); *Osborn v Shillinger, 861 F2d 612, 627 (10th cir 1988) – has a duty to make an independent investigation of the facts and circumstances, to pursue inquiries, and properly prepare [so that the cops can not lie/perjure about the how and whys of doing it] Also *Murray v Carrier, 477 US 478, 496 (1986)  New trial

Utah law also requires a ‘specific intent’ to commit [attemted first degree] homicide; and came up with a test of sorts in State v Castonguay, 663 P2d 1323 at 1325 ‘preparation’ and ‘manifestation’  Neither on my part.  Furthermore, you need more then “knowingly”, one needs a specific intent/that chosen objective/ - actual deliberation and formulation, “knowingly” is not acceptable [or a permissible alternative culpable state of mind for attempted first degree homicide] in the jury instructions, see ‘Huff’ at 1253 and State v Howard, 405 Al2d 206, 212.  And made worse because two of my other instructions when put together were unconstitutionally misleading /taking away my defense or right to defend myself.  [I have those instructions, arguments and cited cases also]   

For consciousness of guilt, see Kidd v State, 748 SW2d 38, 41; US v Boyle, 675 F2d 430 (and E C McCormick on evidence at 271  (c) at 803 (3rd ed. 1984)  many acts of a conspirator or conspirators after the crime seeking to escape the toils of the law are uncritically received as admissions by conduct, constituting circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt and thus guilt itself. [like Exhibit 7 and Alexander and Rigby’s perjury] also see State v Chase, 799 P2d 272, 275; State v Sanchez, 361 P2d 174 inconsistencies with initial and other statements/The inconsistencies “was competent evidence because it reasonably could be regarded as manifesting an awareness of guilt and a desire to protect [themselves] by falsifying to mislead …” 

 
Which one of these above cited cases do not apply to the issuses and allagations I brought to the Court?      or here in my aquest4justice

HOW or WHERE do these above case laws NOT apply to my issues raised on Post Conviction Relief? 

How with all my new [and old] evidence of police perjury and intentional obstruction of justice, my actual innocence, [prosecutorial misconduct and misstatements of the law] ineffective assistance of council [and improper jury instructions] and the probability of a miscarriage of justice.  I am not able to get justice/ a new trial or even a evidentiary hearing on these things.    

HOW can ANY judge say that they actually read this then say that my claims lacked merit and are not backed by established law?  And if they didn’t read it, where is my meaningful access to the Courts?   

 

Comments