Cases Show Disparity Of California’s 3 Strikes Law

This post includes part 2 & 3 in this NPR series…..

by Ina Jaffe

 

Rick Bowmer/AP

Erwin Chemerinsky, attorney for Leandro Andrade, chats with reporters outside the Supreme Court in 2002. Under the three strikes law, Andrade was put away for 50 years to life after stealing videotapes from two different Kmart stores. Chemerinsky challenged the case, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

October 30, 2009

California’s three strikes law has imposed some very long sentences on some very dangerous people.

A third strike carries a sentence of 25 years to life and that sentence can be imposed for any felony, not just a violent one. Some people have challenged the law — but the results have been mixed.

The Leandro Andrade Case

Take, for example, Leandro Andrade.

His last offense was stealing $153 worth of videotapes from Kmart stores in San Bernardino, according to Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine.

Now, Andrade had had his run-ins with the law. He was a drug addict, and he had committed some residential burglaries years before. So when he stole those videos, it was a third strike, which could mean 25 years to life in prison.

But because Andrade grabbed the videos from two different Kmarts, he was prosecuted for two third strikes. As a result, says Chemerinsky, Andrade was sentenced to life in prison with no parole for 50 years.

Parts 1 & 2

Crime Locale Is Key In California’s 3 Strikes Law Oct. 29, 2009

Two Torn Families Show Flip Side Of 3 Strikes Law Oct. 28, 2009

Chemerinsky represented Andrade before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed that a sentence of 50 years to life for shoplifting was cruel and unusual punishment.

But the Supreme Court overturned that ruling on a 5-to-4 vote. The majority found that Andrade’s sentence was not disproportionate because there was still the possibility of parole — though he won’t be eligible until he’s 87 years old.

Continue Reading…….

No Trick: Illinois Set to Release 1,000 Inmates

More than 45,000 inmates are in Illinois prisons, costing taxpayers more than $1 billion a year

By ANDREW GREINER

Updated 2:00 PM CDT, Fri, Oct 30, 2009

 

Getty Images/Thinkstock

And now for something truly scary.

Halloween has arrived, and the Illinois legislature is providing residents with their biggest shrieks of the season.

The state government hopes save millions of dollars by releasing about 1,000 prisoners during the next few weeks, and some nonviolent inmates will be released up to a year early.

But some police, prosecutors and crime victims oppose the plan. And the Chicago Tribune reported Friday that Gov. Pat Quinn‘s administration has declined to release a list of inmates or their offenses, saying the list isn’t final yet.

The Amazing Reversing Governor!

LOOK

The Amazing Reversing Governor!

The inmates will live with friends or family and wear electronic ankle bracelets that allow authorities to monitor them. Most of the offenders will be released to homes in Cook County.

State officials said they’ll release only nonviolent drug and property crime offenders. To be eligible, prisoners must have no previous parole violations and no outstanding warrants or orders of protection out against them.

Foes of the plan fear the worst. Dora Larson of Will County is a victims advocate whose daughter was raped and murdered by a prisoner on parole.

“When offenders are behind bars, they can’t victimize the community,” Larson said.

“They’ve done their best to eliminate violent offenders, but someone is bound to commit murder, armed robbery or rape,” said Loyola University Chicago’s David Olson, a professor of criminal justice serving on a state prison advisory board. “It won’t do the victim any good to say this was bound to happen even if the person got out one year later.”

More than 45,000 inmates are in Illinois prisons, costing taxpayers more than $1 billion a year.

Officials said the prisoners eligible for early release will have a better chance of rehabilitation in the community.

“This is not just an opportunity to save some money but also to deal with crime more effectively,” said state Department of Corrections Director Michael Randle.

Source: NBC Chicago

IL Parole Agents Check Homes Before 1,000 Inmates Freed

Friday, October 30th, 2009 7:12 am

As Illinois prepares to release 1,000 inmates from prison up to a year before the normal end of their terms, parole agents are making unannounced visits to select homes, checking for overcrowding, drug paraphernalia, and vicious dogs that could hamper future inspections. After determining there is adequate space for an inmate, the agents stress to residents that their homes are in for a drastic change. ”I make sure they understand their house is now an extension of prison,” said agent Matt Lukow.

Gov. Pat Quinn hopes to save millions of dollars and usher in other alternatives to incarceration. The cost-cutting early releases are opposed by police, prosecutors, and some crime victims. Offenders will be monitored by electronic ankle bracelets in the homes of friends or family members. Shedding jumpsuits for jeans, they can leave home for jobs, drug counseling, or other productive activities. Parole agents, not prison guards, will monitor their behavior. It is among a variety of controversial changes in corrections sweeping the U.S., as states work to plug the massive financial drain of prisons.

Link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-prison-release-30-oct30,0,6342072.story

Prison Guard Gang in California Prison System Exposed

Available November 1, 2009

The Book

FORWARD Click here to read the Forward

INTRODUCTION Click here to read the Introduction http://www.greenwall2001.com/book.html

ACTION ALERT! The Prison Overcrowding Case and an Unwilling Governor !

ACTION ALERT!
The Prison Overcrowding Case and an Unwilling Governor !

Federal Judges may have to make a ruling within the next week or so due to the absence of action by the Governor to remedy the criminal conditions in prisons (I just got word from a new member that his third striker brother, still in his 30′s, died from what they are telling him is a heart attack).

The judges could ask the lawyers who filed suit originally, for their plan.  All that is to say, you should take advantage of the next few days to write those lawyers with your comments and recommendations.

Is there any reason not to release folks who have served anytime over 5 years for a property or drug possession charge?

Please write to the attorneys below:

DONALD SPECTER
Prison Law Office
General Delivery
San Quentin, CA 94964

and:

MICHAEL W. BIEN
315 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104

Please send a copy of your letters to FACTS so we can print them on our website.
3982 S. Figueroa St. #210
Los Angeles, CA 90037

The Prison Law Office website is: http://www.prisonlaw.com
The FACTS website is: http://www.facts1.net

Thank you for your immediate response to this urgent request!

Todd Willingham commentary

http://www.star-telegram.com/242/story/1722713.html
Friday, October 30, 2009

Willingham: So many questions that refuse to go away
By EUGENIA WILLINGHAM | Special to the Star-Telegram

Nearly 18 years ago, a long nightmare began for my family. Every time we think
the truth is finally coming to light, a new twist reopens old wounds.

In 1991 my stepson, Cameron Todd Willingham, woke up to discover his Corsicana
house on fire. The events that followed have been twisted by people with their
own agenda. I am speaking out now because it is time for the truth in this
case.

The evidence that was used to convict Todd has been discredited by experts and
witnesses. Since Todd’s execution in 2004, several independent experts have
concluded that the forensic analysis at Todd’s trial was wrong.

Gov. Rick Perry ignored an expert’s report about the evidence and refused to
delay Todd’s execution. Five years later, Perry has interfered with the Texas
Forensic Science Commission’s investigation of the case. It’s not clear when
the commission will resume its work, but our family hopes it happens soon.

Meanwhile, Perry and others – including the man who prosecuted Todd, the
defense attorney from Todd’s trial who I think defended him very poorly, and
some members of the media in Texas – have focused on Todd’s character. For
weeks, my family and I have seen reports about what a “monster” Todd was. The
truth is that Todd was sometimes difficult, and his marriage was not always a
happy one. That’s not a crime punishable by lethal injection.

When Todd was 13 months old, I married his father and we raised him together.
I found a boy who was angry and confused, but also smart and compassionate. I
helped that boy grow into a man who did everything he could to provide for his
family and fill his children’s lives with love.

Todd loved his children. We all did. I have always believed he was innocent,
even before the recent revelations about the evidence that was used against
him.

I don’t want to walk through every detail of the evidence, but there are two
new arguments from the media and others that I want to address.

First, Todd’s ex-wife reportedly says now that he confessed to her. I don’t
believe this is true. More importantly, I don’t understand how anyone can
believe what his ex-wife says, given how much her story has changed and how
often it has changed. In my eyes, she is simply not credible after so many
versions of this story, which makes the evidence – or lack thereof – all the
more important.

Second, the fact that Todd didn’t run into a burning home is not proof that he
set the fire. He tried to go back into the house and authorities had to
restrain him. Even if that weren’t the case, human instinct prevents people
from running into fires that will kill them. We may all think we would run
into a serious fire to rescue someone, but human nature takes over in the
moment.

People are entitled to their opinions about the death penalty. But we don’t
execute people for having a bad marriage and a complicated personality.

My family has lost three beautiful little children and their loving father. We
want answers. We want to know how the justice system got so badly off-track in
Todd’s case, and we want to know how many other families have been devastated
by erroneous evidence in arson cases in Texas.

Attacking my son won’t change the troubling lack of evidence in his case, and
it won’t answer questions that refuse to go away.
- – - – -
Eugenia Willingham of Ardmore, Okla., is the stepmother of Cameron Todd
Willingham.

/ / / / /

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6693868.html
Friday, October 30, 2009 | HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Willingham case could improve forensic analysis
By STATE SEN. RODNEY ELLIS and BARRY SCHECK

Cameron Todd Willingham’s case has captured attention across Texas and around
the nation for the last two months, raising serious questions on a number of
fronts. To some people, the case is about capital punishment; to others, it’s
about politics and transparency in state government.

But what brought the Willingham case into the spotlight – and what we cannot
lose sight of – is what it can do to ensure quality forensic analysis in
Texas’ criminal justice system.

Willingham was convicted of murder by arson in 1992 and executed in 2004. His
three young children died in a fire at the family’s Corsicana home. The
centerpiece of the case against him was the testimony of forensic analysts who
said the fire was intentionally set. Without the forensic evidence, there
would be no legitimate reason to find that a crime had occurred, and
Willingham would not have been tried or convicted.

In 2006, the Innocence Project brought the Willingham case to Texas’ Forensic
Science Commission, which the state Legislature had created a year earlier.
The Legislature created this commission to investigate allegations of
negligence or misconduct that substantially affects the integrity of forensic
analysis and recommend corrective action. The commission’s charge is
straightforward and clear, and the Willingham case fits squarely within it.

The filing that kicked off the commission’s investigation didn’t just focus on
Willingham’s case. It also included the case of Ernest Willis, who was
convicted and sentenced to death for a nearly identical crime at around the
same time – based on nearly identical forensic analysis – but was exonerated
because the forensic evidence was so flawed. The Pecos County prosecutor who
requested Willis’ exoneration determined that the arson analysis was wrong
because it relied on outdated and inaccurate forensic techniques. Willis was
determined to be “actually innocent” and was compensated by the state of
Texas.

The filing also noted that thousands of Texans are convicted of arson, and
that the commission’s investigation could help determine whether accurate,
reliable forensic analysis is being used statewide. The Forensic Science
Commission voted unanimously to move forward with an investigation comparing
the Willis and Willingham cases and, by extension, determining whether there
may be broader problems with other arson convictions.

This is the kind of work the Legislature had in mind when it created the
commission. The legislation creating the commission passed in 2005, in the
midst of the Houston Police Department crime lab scandal. Many legislators
cited problems in the lab when debating whether to create the commission, and
they also made it clear that we needed an independent commission to
investigate other forensic issues that may come up.

Once it was created, the commission was slow to start its work because the
governor did not appoint members and funding was not appropriated. Earlier
this month, when the commission was well into its review of arson cases, its
work ground to a halt because Gov. Rick Perry replaced the chairman and
several members of the commission. At a hearing on Nov. 10, the new chairman
will update the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee on his plans for
continuing the commission’s ongoing work.

But as we turn toward the next steps for the commission, it’s critical to
remember why the commission was created – and what the investigation of the
Willingham case and other arson cases is really about. The commission was
never investigating whether an innocent man had been executed; that’s not its
role. Instead, the commission is trying to determine whether the forensic
analysts in the Willingham case negligently used unreliable methods, whether
there are other past cases where unreliable arson analysis was employed, and
what, if any, corrective action should be taken.

Central to the commission’s review is the fact that forensic experts should
have known before Willingham’s trial that the techniques they were using to
determine whether the fire was arson were no longer standard practice. The
National Fire Protection Association had issued guidelines several months
before the trial that directly contradicted the analysis the experts used. In
short, the “new” science that shows why the arson analysis in Willingham’s
case was flawed wasn’t new at all, and this critical evidence should have been
brought to the attention of courts and prosecutors long before the
eleventh-hour efforts that preceded Willingham’s execution.

By looking at how outdated science was used in the Willis and Willingham
cases, the Forensic Science Commission can determine how often this might have
happened in other cases – and how we can be sure it doesn’t happen in the
future. That’s not a political consideration or a mechanism for reviewing the
death penalty. It’s a critical safeguard for ensuring that our system of
justice is accurate and reliable. It’s what the state Legislature wanted when
it created this commission, and it’s what we must ensure the commission can
continue doing.
- – - – -
Ellis, D-Houston, represents State Senate District 13; Scheck is co-founder
and co-director of the Innocence Project.

Source: “StandDown Texas Project” group

Just A Guy: Prison report: The New Yorker bungles the story

Prison report: The New Yorker bungles the story

By Just A Guy

Editors note: Just A Guy is an inmate in a California state prison. His dispatches run twice a week.

Shame on Ian Frazier and the New Yorker.

Frazier is a writer for that bastion of liberal magazines, and he published an article (puff piece) about cell-phone sniffing dogs in the New Jersey correctional system.

No, it’s not really a puff piece — “puff pieces” generally don’t have a deleterious affect on people or segments of society, as Frazier’s piece does on inmates throughout the country.

The piece does a great job of allowing New Jersey corrections officials to laud their own efforts to overthrow that most evil beast, the cell phone in prison. The piece goes on to report about New Jersey corrections training its own dogs on how to sniff out cell phones, and the wonderful results of that training, which is the seizure of more than 130 cell phones from us dastardly, evil inmates.

New Jersey corrections ballyhoos itself quite well about how much the agency is saving over states like California, which has contracted cell phone sniffers to come in at exorbitant rates, depleting our already woefully depleted budget. At least the New Jersey corrections folks got something right.

The corrections agency goes on to say how dangerous and threatening all us inmates are with cell phones, how it’s pretty much only gang members and drug dealers who purchase the phones and call out hits on unsuspecting witnesses and victims.

The puff piece, uh, I mean, article, quotes a staff member/trainer who doesn’t want to say what the dogs smell while sniffing for the phones but says it’s something organic.

I say, boink. Lets think about what’s in a cell phone that’s not in a TV or radio — and that’s organic. Wow, tough one ….

And behind door number one we have the lithium ion battery! Lithium batteries use an organic alkali. Smell your battery, people; it has it’s own distinct and somewhat earthy scent. But I am no scientist and am purely guessing.

Shame on Frazier for not finding out the answers to some key questions — and shame on the editorial staff of the New Yorker for not pushing Frazier to ask some of these questions:

1. How much does it cost an inmate in New Jersey to make a collect call?

2. How often are inmates allowed to make phone calls?

3. Are the visitors really the main way cells phones are coming in? And how do the inmates deposit cell phones and chargers into their body cavities in the visiting room anyway? (They must have lax visiting standards in New Jersey).

4. How much does a cell phone coast an inmate in New Jersey?

If corrections departments across the country get their heads our of the asses long enough to see that they will not win the cell phone battle as long as the financial incentives are so great for their employees, they would be able to see that maybe allowing and regulating cell phones (see my previous post on this) could provide the security they are looking for.

Ninety nine percent of inmates using cell phones in prison are just tying to stay connected to family, friends and loved ones. Of course there are people doing negative shit with the phones — but this same stuff can be done on a collect call in a letter or during a visit.

Ian Frazier and the New Yorker, I challenge you to do a real piece covering both sides of this story rather than just the side corrections wants you to hear. Give Tim Redmond a call — you may be truly enlightened.

Sorry folks — I had not planned on hitting the cell phone thing so soon again. But I had no choice — someone has to voice another outlook. Too bad it’s me and not the “real” journalists like Ian Frazier.

Source: SFBG

 

http://www.blogsurfer.us/

The 3 most crowded state prison systems in America

The overcrowding of America’s jails and prisons is a nationwide issue that has been building in scope for over a quarter century.

CorrectionsOne has created this report in an effort to zero in on the heart of the problem. Charted below are the three most overcrowded state prison systems in the country. The figures are based on recent reports released by state DOCs across the country and include all facilities from Maximum security to Work Camps.

The big three:

The raw numbers:

#1 - Alabama: According to the August, 2009 ‘Monthly Statistical Report’ released by the Alabama Department of Corrections, the state is currently incarcerating 25,593 inmates, while the intended capacity of all of its facilities combined only amounts to 13,403 inmates. By these numbers, Alabama’s prisons are 190.9% occupied, making it the most overcrowded state prison system in the country.

#2 – California: Alabama may be the most crowded system per total intended capacity, but California has far more inmates in total than all states but Texas. According to a October 14th, 2009 California Department of Rehabilitation “Weekly Report of Population”, the state currently incarcerates 155,041 inmates, while the systemwide intended capacity of all its facilities is only 81,156. This makes California’s prisons 184.2% occupied, the second most overcrowded state prison system in the country.

#3 – Massachusettes: The competition for third place is much more fierce. However, inching just ahead of a several other states is Massachusettes, with 11,327 total inmates and an intended capacity of just 7,979 – according to the “Quarterly Report on the Status of Prison Overcrowding” released on June 29th, 2009. Thus, Massachusettes’ prisons are 142% occupied, the third most overcrowded system in the country.

Continue reading……

Two Torn Families Show Flip Side Of 3 Strikes Law

by Ina Jaffe

First of a three-part series

John Storey/Time Life Pictures/Getty Images

Mike Reynolds pets his cat outside his home in 1992, the year his 18-year-old daughter, Kimber, was shot and killed by a repeat offender. Two years later, his ballot initiative for California’s three strikes law passed overwhelmingly. He has fought tirelessly to uphold it ever since.

October 28, 2009

Fifteen years ago, California voters passed the strictest three strikes sentencing law in the nation. It doubled the penalties for second felonies that were serious or violent. The so-called third strike carries a mandatory prison sentence of 25 years to life.

About two dozen states have similar laws. But only California counts any felony as a third strike, not just a serious or violent one.

The law was the result of a deathbed promise Mike Reynolds, of Fresno, Calif., made to his 18-year-old daughter, Kimber, after she was fatally shot.

Continue reading……

Reggie Blanton Executed by the State of Texas

Oct 27, 2009 7:31 pm US/Central

28-year-old Convicted In 2000 Shooting Executed

MICHAEL GRACZYK, Associated Press Writer

HUNTSVILLE, Texas (AP) ― A man convicted of murder in a San Antonio robbery more than nine years ago was executed Tuesday evening after proclaiming his innocence. Reginald Blanton, 28, received lethal injection for the April 2000 shooting death of Carlos Garza at the 22-year-old man’s apartment. In a brief statement after he was strapped to the Texas death chamber gurney, Blanton insisted his execution was an injustice and he was wrongly convicted. “Carlos was my friend,” he said, looking at Garza’s mother, wife and three sisters, who watched through a window a few feet from him. “I didn’t murder him. What’s happening right now is an injustice. This doesn’t solve anything. This will not bring back Carlos.” Blanton also complained the lethal drugs that would be used on him weren’t allowed to put down dogs. “I say I am worse off than a dog,” he said. “They want to kill me for all this. I am not the man that did this.” Then he told friends he loved them and to continue to fight. “I will see y’all again,” he said. He was pronounced dead at 6:21 p.m., eight minutes after the lethal drugs began flowing. “Today is the day we have all been waiting for,” said one of Garza’s sisters, Sulema Balverde. “My brother Carlos Garza can finally rest in peace.” The women held hands or wrapped their arms around each other while Blanton spoke. Some wiped away tears. “I miss my son dearly and have waited for this day to finally get here,” said Irene Garza, the victim’s mother. The punishment was carried out less than two hours after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Blanton’s last-day appeals. He had always maintained his innocence but a security video submitted at his capital murder trial showed him pawning two gold necklaces and a religious medal belonging to Garza about 20 minutes after the shooting. When he was arrested four days later, he was wearing more of Garza’s jewelry. Blanton’s twin brother, Robert Blanton, told police his brother broke into Garza’s apartment, believing no one was home, and shot Garza when he appeared. Prosecutors said Reginald Blanton, who was 18 at the time, took some jewelry and left, then returned 20 minutes later to go through Garza’s place. He took about $100 in cash. The necklaces got him $79 at a pawn shop. A neighbor called police after seeing the broken door and spotting Garza lying on the floor. Garza died later at a hospital. Robert Blanton’s girlfriend tipped police about the shooting. Robert Blanton implicated his brother during questioning. Reginald Blanton argued his brother’s statement was coerced by police. Robert Blanton wasn’t charged in the case because authorities couldn’t show he was involved in the break-in or shooting, but he’s now in prison, serving a two-year term for an unrelated drug conviction at the Huntsville Unit, the prison where the execution was carried out. Reginald Blanton’s trial attorneys told a Bexar County jury he shouldn’t be sentenced to die, saying he had a horrible childhood with little supervision and he could have been harmed as a fetus because his mother was pushed down the stairs. Witnesses testified Blanton smoked marijuana at age 11, spent time at a juvenile boot camp and joined gangs in San Antonio to seek protection his family didn’t provide. He had previous arrests for shoplifting, weapons possession, auto theft and marijuana possession. When he was arrested on the capital murder charge, he had four bags of marijuana and a shotgun. He was accused of assaulting an inmate while awaiting trial. On death row, prison records show Blanton had several disciplinary infractions, including possession of a sharpened steel shank.

New Hell Hole News #15 Part 3

New Hell Hole News #15

September 25th, 2009

KILLER KELLER STRIKES AGAIN!! – Part 3

 I have no problem describing myself as an alcoholic. But I wasn’t a constant drinker hiding bottles everywhere. I never had the shakes or D.T.’s. I was a “weekend warrior,” a binge drinker. I have impaired liver function. A doctor at TDCJ’s UTMB Galveston has diagnosed me in the past as having a “coarse liver.” After a binge it takes me a while to recover. On the same amount of alcohol I stay drunker, longer, than anyone else. Killer Keller cites what I can do min-wise while drunk. Yes well, I did that sitting in a chair because I couldn’t stand up or walk without falling. The victims in this case weren’t killed with (or by) anyone’s mind or thought processes. This conversation I had with the sheriff wasn’t in relation to any physical action on my part but simply my reading, with one eye closed, while sitting down and drunk as hell, a document he’d placed before me. How does performing that task even remotely relate to killing three (3) people in a minutes and a half? Like I say, K.K.’s “reasoning” isn’t just oberblown and far reaching, it’s slightly insane. This is a judge, on the state’s highest appeals court mind you, the presiding judge no less – which equates to the same position as senior judge on the state supreme court or chief justice on the U.S. supreme court, who says these things. Worse, she goes on to mischaracterize the so-called circumstantial evidence against me on pg 19 of her “opinion”: “DNA testing of the blood stains on the clothing showing a match with Twila and Elwin” (yes but as the state concluded at trial, the tested stains ere only direct contact transfers, meaning only that I came into contact with tow of the victims or, something they’d deposited blood on, at a time after they became bloody, not that I’d killed anyone. I didn’t!) “The serious cut in appellant’s right hand” (I’ve explained how my hand was cut. The crime scene photographs show the broken light globes and the upturned curved glass shards on the floor by Twila’s body. True, my explanation is not in the record. But what is in the record is the medical examiner’s testimony that it’s likely a defensive wound on my hand which raises evidence of self- defense, not evidence of murder.) “The mixed profile of appellant’s and Twila’s DNA” (GeneScreen’s own tests prove it was innocent or cross-contamination from the lab. My markers were all “faint,” suggesting innocent touch contamination – Twila and I had been in casual contact all afternoon and evening the day/night of the murders. Subsequent independent testing of the blood flakes off the hair prove it was only Twila’s own blood. Subsequent mtDNA testing of the hair show it came from an unknown male individual, not me – this is one of the many hairs “clutched” in the had of Twila, my girlfriend, which the then D.A., John Mann, says “She tore from the head of her assailant during the struggle for her life, which she ultimately lost.” So, Sharon Killer Keller, how is that incriminating to me?) “Appellant linked himself to the crime in a statement to police in which he said he thought Twila gave him a cut on his hand and they may have gotten into a fight, but he claimed not to remember plainly.” (“Linked” myself “to the crime”? You must be kidding me. I was there! I never denied that! I had every right in the universe to be there! The “statement” K.K. refers to was made to Terry Young and inadmissible for any purpose due to what I stated earlier – denial of counsel when repeatedly requested, violations of Miranda and my constitutional rights and coercion – all of which Terry Young has openly admitted at a pretrial hearing after I tricked him into it. I was standing in front of the jury room talking to the chief jailer whom I’d known for years, who asked me how the hearing was going. Terry Young was standing around the corner from that alcove, eavesdropping. We’d invoked “the rule” as to witnesses, meaning other potential witnesses could not be in the courtroom hearing the testimonies of their contemporaries lest they be tainted by it. Terry knew he’d violated my rights and that the other officers did not like him – there was a rivalry going on between him/ the P.D. and the S.O. over “who would get credit for cracking the case and nailing Skinner” as the deputy put it. So I started telling the jailer about how the previous P.D. officer had give up Terry Young for violating all my rights, denying me access to counsel, coercion, suggesting various scenarios to me and trying to get me to confirm them, etc. Terry was then next witness to testify and he’d had the jailer and deputy questioning me so he could get the inside scoop.) When we went back into the courtroom I told Harold Comer to question Terry Young about these things. He says “I’m not going to cross- examine him about that! He won’t admit to it!” I said, “Oh yes he will, just ask him this, this and this,” etc. But Harold still wasn’t’ going to until I got really insistent and stomped his toes under the table. So he was like, “Ok, smartass I’ll show you!” As he started coming right out of lead detective Terry Young’s mouth – Comer: “Did he tell you he wanted to call a lawyer?” T. Young: “Well I remember he wanted to call someone in some offices, sir. But the number was long distance and I couldn’t dial that from my office without authorization, sir.” Once Comer saw Young was going to give himself up, Comer grew confident and asked all the questions. T. Young admitted to everything, especially the coercion and trying to plant memories in my head. Now, back to the morning after the murders. After Young started questioning me without a lawyer, I knew it wasn’t admissible. I knew that Young, Steve Chance, and Morse Burroughs had been over there setting up that scene to their liking. I’m still drunk and hung over, deathly sick from the codeine, and about to be accused of a capital murder I did not commit. I had some memory of Scooter getting me out of there and falling, etc. I thought about the club. I knew Twila was beat to death with it due to how she was when I saw her, so I figured Scooter had took it away from her killer in running him out of the house. That’s the one piece of evidence I could think of that the killer had to have touched. So I decided then and there to just try to go along with Young as much as I could without actually making a false confession, to try to get them to test evidence I felt would exonerate me. I knew I had not touched that club in weeks and the killer had, as had Scooter – well, his prints could be eliminated, as being a victim. Which would leave only the killer’s. These three detectives and patrolman are three of the most corrupt on that force. Remember, I worked for a criminal defense lawyer in that town for years, so I’d seen plenty examples of these officers “work” before. Four days after the murders I employed the same tactic with the sheriff, hoping to make use of the rivalry between the sheriff’s office (S.O.) and the Pampa police department (P.D.). Of course they could’ve easily tried to tamper with that evidence, too. But I banked on the fact that, if they already thought it was me/mine they’d just get it tested and see. All I’ve ever wanted was the truth to come out. I am not guilty of this crime, I did not commit it. I don’t make any excuses for what I did do; I don’t pretend my thinking makes excellent sense or even follows logic anyone can approve of or whatever. I’m telling you this only to be honest and, more importantly, to show you the difference between reality and the insanity Killer Keller would have you believe. My statements are not in the least any “confessions” and when Terry Young was confronted by the Houston Chronicle’s reporters he admitted “Skinner never confessed.” That story is attached to the NHHN #13. More importantly, Harold Comer knew all this prior to trial and did nothing. At the 2005 evidentiary hearing Comer admitted that I’d told him from day one that I was innocent and I demanded testing of the evidence. Yet he claimed that the reason he didn’t test the evidence was because of his knowledge of the Terry Young interview and although it was totally inadmissible because of detective Young’s onerous violations of all my rights, he still considered it when deciding to not test the evidence. You see, Harold Comer is a real dog turd. Not only did he sell me out, lay down on me and let John Mann convict me on false evidence, he’s still a D.A. at heart and when the A.G. came to him saying “what about this ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim?” he again offered my life up on the sacrificial alter by claiming he relied on that interview he knew was a sham – to save his sorry hid and falsely make me appear guilty. The lawyer’s #1 duty is to his client – I waived the atty/ client confidentiality clause with respect to privilege so Comer could testify, but that in no way released him from his ethical duty to put his client’s interests first. Harold Comer is a grade-A lying piece of shit. He intentionally, by lying, got the judge to admit a piece of inadmissible evidence that could be construed to make me appear guilty. And, looky here! That’s exactly what the federal magistrate and Killer Keller did with it! As to K.K.’s taking into account Andrea’s first lying statement because the federal magistrate found her recantation to be not credible and that I came into her house under my own power, etc., there’s a photo of the deputies holding me up in front of a camera on my website. I’m literally passed out on my feet and if they weren’t holding me up I’da been on the floor, laid out: http://www.hankskinner.org As to the “multiple stories” Killer Keller cites as “incriminating,” they are no such thing. Andrea testified I told her different stories about what might’ve happened – all involving other people, not me. But what she doesn’t tell is that she asked me to speculate on who might’ve killed Twila. So we were just sitting there brainstorming (ha/ha) who could’ve done such a thing. However, drunk and sick as I was, laid across the table, I could barely speak so it came out more or less as gibberish – which is exactly what Andrea says in her recantation affidavit. K.K. says, “We conclude that appellant’s proffered evidence on the issue of incapacity does not call into question defense counsel’s strategy to forgo DNA testing.” Well, unfortunately, that’s only because neither she nor the other eight inquisitory prosecutors on that court ever bothered to look at the evidence or the record as a whole. Before I go on here, I’d like to again call your attention to the evidence of my innocence cited in NHHN #13. Also, I’d like to preface this with a short explanation about judicial review. In a situation like this the court has recognized, you must view the case in the context of the record in its entirety. You don’t get to surgically go in and pick out only what you want to use to condemn a man – that’s a premium showing of inherent bias and prejudice – or as Sharon Killer puts it so quaintly, being “prosecution oriented.” Well, what about al the evidence in the record that cannot be reconciled with her stupid view about my incapacitation? Let me cite just one example: Defense expert Dr. Joe Tarpley, PT/LVN, testified that he examined my crippled hand – over 14 months after the murders, and found that I had less than half the strength (then) in my right had as I did my left hand; the right hand being dominant I should’ve had 25% more strength in the right hand than the left, so that’s a 75% loss or more, total. And, 50 to 60% tissue/muscle mass lost out of that hand and there was damage to the ligaments, tendons and bones of the thumb in my right hand which caused very limited range of motion and utility. This evidence was all based on scientific test conducted by the experts and it was all totally unrefuted by the state at trial. That means that, under Texas criminal law practice and current case law precedent, it’s the law and fact of the case. Sharon Killer and her eight cohorts are bound by it. Period. This was after my hand had 14 months of additional healing time. At the time of the murders I could hardly use a hairbrush. Twila was strangled by hands so powerful they crushed the bones in her neck and left permanent finger shaped depressions/indentations in the flesh of her throat. Based on this evidence the medical examiner, a pathologist named Dr. Elizabeth Peacock, who did the autopsies on all three (3) victims, testified that Twila was strangled in the classic throttling sort of grip, thumbs overlaced with fingers curled around her neck. It is beyond axiomatic that I could not have committed this act nor could I have wielded that club against her nor the knives. Once again, I’m right-handed and it’s my right hand that was crippled. What’s even worse is Sharon Killer’s treatment of the DNA testing carried out in 2000 unilaterally by then D.A., John Mann. When that testing was falsely alleged to incriminate me, the CCA could not go along with it quickly enough. Now that it tentatively exonerates me, they “are not persuaded.” This method they use of “attack and distort” and selectively citing only those facts which support the position they want to take are prosecutorial tactics, not the reasoned judgment of a fair and impartial factfinder. Worse still, Keller acknowledges that the state withheld material evidence on discovery which they were ordered to turn over to the defense, then she goes on to actually chastise the defense expert and deride his opinions because he acknowledged that he was working from incomplete data, the underlying DNA testing’s electronic data was unreadable and the hard copy data was incomplete! Sharon Killer also overlooks the fact that William Watson also agreed at the very beginning of his testimony that he made a mistake in attributing to me the hair “clutched” in Twila’s hand. But Keller goes on to credit the state’s expert, Watson, because “unlike [defense expert] Dr Shields, Watson had access to the samples themselves and, presumably, the complete data generated during testing.” So this is now an inquisitorial system in Texas. The state can test whatever it wants and hide both the evidence and the underlying data from the defense and not only get away with it but be complimented for it! She goes on to say “genomic testing on those very hairs revealed a mixed sample of appellant’s and Twila’s DNA, and it may well be that it was that mixture that contaminated the second hair, rendering a mitochondrial DNA test unreliable.” That is a bald faced lie. Watson testified that there was (and we have a photo of it and photocopies) a Ziplock baggie of many hairs labeled 11-D and when the mitochondrial testing was done, it was not done on “the same two hairs the genomic testing was done on.” They simply selected two more hairs out of the 11-D bag and did mitochondrial (mtDNA) testing on those hairs. Worse still, I think Madam Killer Keller wrote this insane opinion because I had written the special prosecutor in her unethical conduct trial by the Texas commission on judicial conduct, telling him of her statements about being “prosecution oriented” and inquiring as to why no one ever acknowledged that such a statement plainly and clearly admits to serious bias and prejudice in favor of the state and against any criminal defendant petitioner or appellant. That it’s constitutionally required as part of due process to be heard by a fair and impartial factfinder. I think probably the prosecutor, John McKetta, turned over to Keller’s attorney, Chip Babcock, my letter on discovery and Keller was thus aware of it and maybe read it, then in retaliation authored this “opinion” in my Ch 64 appeal on DNA testing. If this is so, Keller should’ve recused herself from my case. Only in Texas can something this insane happen.

As always

999143 Polunsky Unit H

W Hank Skinner

3872 FM 350

South Livingston, TX 77351-8580

http://www.hankskinner.org

h.w.skinner@gmail.com