Post by robbie on Jun 24, 2006 9:44:52 GMT -5
Dysfunctional Court System, USA
On June 14, 2006 the 11th Circuit Court denied Patrick Swiney’s request to show his evidence of actual innocence to the Federal Court in Alabama. The court said it denied this request because Patrick failed to make “a prima facie showing of the existence of either [of] the grounds set forth in § 2244(b)(2)”.
ABOUT THE CODE
So what is required in § 2244(b)(2)? Here is what that code says: “The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of this subsection.”
What does that subsection say? Here is what it says: “The factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
PRESENTED TO THE COURT
First the 11th Circuit Court was told that this case went to trial in 1989. At that time, the State assured everyone that every ounce of evidence against Patrick Swiney was in what they call the “Open File”. An open file is the prosecutor’s file that he shares with the defense which is designed to save money and speed things up in a trial. This works great as long as the prosecution doesn’t hide things from the defense. The defense in this case thought the prosecutor was an honest guy so he agreed to use the State’s open file too.
We showed the 11th Circuit that the prosecutor hid a lot of evidence and because he hid it, there was no way for the defense to find it since the agreement was to use the “Open File” and in fact, the prosecutor urged the defense to use their file instead of taking the time to find its own evidence for defending Patrick.
The prosecutor told the jury that Patrick shot a hole in the kitchen window that hit the male victim in the neck which paralyzed him. We told the 11th Circuit Court we had photos that weren’t given to us until 2002 that show no holes in the window or screen.
The prosecutor told the jury that Patrick was at the crime scene at 9:30 p.m. (the time of the victims’ deaths) and we told the 11th Circuit Court that police records showed that Patrick was 10 miles away at 9:30 p.m.
The prosecutor had two forensic reports that he never showed the jury and these were important. One shows that there was no gun shot residue on Patrick and the other shows that there was no blood found on Patrick or any of his clothes or even on his shoes.
The state finally showed some of its evidence in 2003 and that evidence proved that the state forensic laboratory – when testing for gun shot residue on Patrick – tested for an element that was widely known not to exist and then to make it impossible to argue this, the state destroyed the evidence regarding this test.
Even with all of that – and there is a much more that may be found at www.patrickswiney.com/legal_index.html – the 11th Circuit failed to see the prima facie showing of actual innocence. This is totally dysfunctional behavior of such learned justices who have been appointed to the office of “Gatekeeper” by the President of the United States. These justices must either be completely blind, or something else is going on.
CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR
The nature of this crime was terrible. Two people were shot to death in 1987 but Patrick is not the person who did the shooting and we showed this to the 11th Circuit Court through scientific evidence that was found in 2003, proof of evidence tampering and proof that the prosecutor convicted the wrong man. None of these things could have been found previously because they were either (1) hidden from view by the prosecutor and found decades later or (2) not discovered through forensic science until 2003.
The code says that, “But for Constitutional Error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. We showed the 11th Circuit Court that the prosecutor hid evidence of innocence from the jury and that the State hid additional evidence until 2002 and 2003.
In the real world, this is a violation of due process which is “constitutional error”. In the world of the 11th Circuit Court, this is not sufficient to show that the prosecutor or the State did anything wrong.
NOT APPEALABLE
According to the US Code, when the Gatekeeper Court says a person is denied his or her right to file in Federal Court, there is no recourse. You cannot appeal this. You cannot say to these judges, “Wait, there’s been a serious mistake because look at this!”
INAPPROPRIATE CODE
Even if these facts showing innocence could have been found previously but were never shown to the jury, a person who has evidence of actual innocence should still be allowed to show such evidence to the court in order to set the record straight. The way the code is written, that’s impossible to do and this is wrong. There are no restrictions such as time limits as to when evidence may be found or shown to a grand jury in a case of murder and there should be no such time limits as to when evidence of innocence may be found or shown to a court in a case of innocence. In other words, there’s no statute of limitations on murder and there should be no statute of limitations on innocence.
NOT ON DEATH ROW
Not being on death row makes a huge difference in how any case is handled. If a person is “only” sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, that sentence is not considered a death sentence. So when a person is sentenced to die in prison, that is not thought of as a death sentence and since that sentence is not thought of that way, the person’s case is not looked upon very seriously. Scrutiny is offered to death row cases but not other cases of death sentence.
DYSFUNCTION IN THE US COURTS
Apparently it does not matter how much proof a person has that he or she did not commit a crime. It doesn’t matter if the prosecutor tampered with evidence or hid exonerating evidence in order to get a conviction. It only matters that the prosecutor wins his case and the person who is innocent can just suffer.
Meanwhile, it apparently does not matter that the person who actually committed the crime is and has been walking in freedom to commit more crimes.
Is this dysfunction deliberate or accidental? This is for the public should decide, and it is also for the public to decide if it is okay for an innocent person to die in prison for a crime someone else committed.
C L
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/PrisonMovement
Prison Reform is NOT soft on crime
On June 14, 2006 the 11th Circuit Court denied Patrick Swiney’s request to show his evidence of actual innocence to the Federal Court in Alabama. The court said it denied this request because Patrick failed to make “a prima facie showing of the existence of either [of] the grounds set forth in § 2244(b)(2)”.
ABOUT THE CODE
So what is required in § 2244(b)(2)? Here is what that code says: “The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of this subsection.”
What does that subsection say? Here is what it says: “The factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
PRESENTED TO THE COURT
First the 11th Circuit Court was told that this case went to trial in 1989. At that time, the State assured everyone that every ounce of evidence against Patrick Swiney was in what they call the “Open File”. An open file is the prosecutor’s file that he shares with the defense which is designed to save money and speed things up in a trial. This works great as long as the prosecution doesn’t hide things from the defense. The defense in this case thought the prosecutor was an honest guy so he agreed to use the State’s open file too.
We showed the 11th Circuit that the prosecutor hid a lot of evidence and because he hid it, there was no way for the defense to find it since the agreement was to use the “Open File” and in fact, the prosecutor urged the defense to use their file instead of taking the time to find its own evidence for defending Patrick.
The prosecutor told the jury that Patrick shot a hole in the kitchen window that hit the male victim in the neck which paralyzed him. We told the 11th Circuit Court we had photos that weren’t given to us until 2002 that show no holes in the window or screen.
The prosecutor told the jury that Patrick was at the crime scene at 9:30 p.m. (the time of the victims’ deaths) and we told the 11th Circuit Court that police records showed that Patrick was 10 miles away at 9:30 p.m.
The prosecutor had two forensic reports that he never showed the jury and these were important. One shows that there was no gun shot residue on Patrick and the other shows that there was no blood found on Patrick or any of his clothes or even on his shoes.
The state finally showed some of its evidence in 2003 and that evidence proved that the state forensic laboratory – when testing for gun shot residue on Patrick – tested for an element that was widely known not to exist and then to make it impossible to argue this, the state destroyed the evidence regarding this test.
Even with all of that – and there is a much more that may be found at www.patrickswiney.com/legal_index.html – the 11th Circuit failed to see the prima facie showing of actual innocence. This is totally dysfunctional behavior of such learned justices who have been appointed to the office of “Gatekeeper” by the President of the United States. These justices must either be completely blind, or something else is going on.
CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR
The nature of this crime was terrible. Two people were shot to death in 1987 but Patrick is not the person who did the shooting and we showed this to the 11th Circuit Court through scientific evidence that was found in 2003, proof of evidence tampering and proof that the prosecutor convicted the wrong man. None of these things could have been found previously because they were either (1) hidden from view by the prosecutor and found decades later or (2) not discovered through forensic science until 2003.
The code says that, “But for Constitutional Error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. We showed the 11th Circuit Court that the prosecutor hid evidence of innocence from the jury and that the State hid additional evidence until 2002 and 2003.
In the real world, this is a violation of due process which is “constitutional error”. In the world of the 11th Circuit Court, this is not sufficient to show that the prosecutor or the State did anything wrong.
NOT APPEALABLE
According to the US Code, when the Gatekeeper Court says a person is denied his or her right to file in Federal Court, there is no recourse. You cannot appeal this. You cannot say to these judges, “Wait, there’s been a serious mistake because look at this!”
INAPPROPRIATE CODE
Even if these facts showing innocence could have been found previously but were never shown to the jury, a person who has evidence of actual innocence should still be allowed to show such evidence to the court in order to set the record straight. The way the code is written, that’s impossible to do and this is wrong. There are no restrictions such as time limits as to when evidence may be found or shown to a grand jury in a case of murder and there should be no such time limits as to when evidence of innocence may be found or shown to a court in a case of innocence. In other words, there’s no statute of limitations on murder and there should be no statute of limitations on innocence.
NOT ON DEATH ROW
Not being on death row makes a huge difference in how any case is handled. If a person is “only” sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, that sentence is not considered a death sentence. So when a person is sentenced to die in prison, that is not thought of as a death sentence and since that sentence is not thought of that way, the person’s case is not looked upon very seriously. Scrutiny is offered to death row cases but not other cases of death sentence.
DYSFUNCTION IN THE US COURTS
Apparently it does not matter how much proof a person has that he or she did not commit a crime. It doesn’t matter if the prosecutor tampered with evidence or hid exonerating evidence in order to get a conviction. It only matters that the prosecutor wins his case and the person who is innocent can just suffer.
Meanwhile, it apparently does not matter that the person who actually committed the crime is and has been walking in freedom to commit more crimes.
Is this dysfunction deliberate or accidental? This is for the public should decide, and it is also for the public to decide if it is okay for an innocent person to die in prison for a crime someone else committed.
C L
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/PrisonMovement
Prison Reform is NOT soft on crime