Post by MXB on Jun 10, 2006 12:34:41 GMT -5
Part 4: The Conviction and the Post-Conviction Appeals
Despite the presentatiom of the evidence, and substantial evidence to demonstarate that Maurice Mason could not have been in the location the State claimed, the jury convicted him of murder.
After considerable deliberation the jury had indicated that it was "unable to reach a unanimous decison on any of the sentencing options." The Court inquired whether the foreman thought they could reach a verdict if they were given additional time. The foreman responded "No". Despite the unequivocal response, the Trial Court sent the jury back to the jury room to deliberate further. The next day, the all-white jury returned with a death verdict. When the foreman said "no", the judge should then have let the jury leave, and given Mason time without the death penalty, 15 to life, or 20 to life.
Maurice Mason's petition for Writ of Centiorari was likewise denied Dec. 18, 1998. Contemporaneously with litigating his direct appeals, Maurice filed a petition for post conviction relief pursuant to Ohio Rev, code claiming his conviction and sentence of death were void or voidable under the constitution. Maurice attached affidavits to his petition pursuant to Ohio rev. code in order to demonstrate the need for an evidentiary hearing. maurice requested funds for expert and investigative assistance supported by affidavit. the Trial Court denied Maurice mason's request as "not well taken."
The post-conviction Trial Court summarily denied Maurice's petition without an evidentiary hearing and without permitting discovery. Maurice filed a timely motion to grant relief from judgement (with affidavits attached) which was summarily overruled by the post-conviction Trial Court on December 27th, 1996. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Courts dismissal.
The Supreme Court of Ohio summarily denied Maurice Mason's Descretionary Appeal. Mason then filed his application to reopen pursuant to. The 3rd District Court of Appeals dismissed the application on procedural grounds on Nov. 16, 1999. Mason then timely filed a Notice of Appeal in the Supreme Court of Ohio on Jan. 3rd, 2000. The Supreme Court of Ohio ultimately found Maurice Mason's application to reopen to have been untimely.
Following the exhaustion of his remedies in the State courts, Mason filed his Notice of Intent to file a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and an action for Stay of Execution and appointment of counsel in the Northern District of Ohio on March 8, 1999. The Court granted teh stay of execution and permitted Mason to file his correct petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 25 Corrected Petition.
The warden subsequently filed her Return of Writ and portions of the State Court Record. Maurice filed a motion to expand the record and a motion for an evidentiary hearing. Mason likewise filed his traverse to the retuen of writ, addressing procedural issues as well as merits. The District Court on May 9, 2000, entered an order dismissing Mason's petition for writ of habeas corpus, and denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing.
Maurice Mason then timely filed his notice of appeal. The District Court subsequently granted Mason's request for a Certificate of Appealagility as to all issues.
The verdict and sentence imposed upon Maurice Mason by the Court of Ohio are unreliable. The review provided through direct review and state post-conviction did not provide an adequate means by which to remedy the constitutional violations. The courts failed to provide an adequate counsel and denied funding for expert and investigative assistance to challenge the conviction sentence. the Ohio courts denied an evidentiary hearing. The Ohio court likewise denied Mason due process.
To be continued when futher information is provided.
Despite the presentatiom of the evidence, and substantial evidence to demonstarate that Maurice Mason could not have been in the location the State claimed, the jury convicted him of murder.
After considerable deliberation the jury had indicated that it was "unable to reach a unanimous decison on any of the sentencing options." The Court inquired whether the foreman thought they could reach a verdict if they were given additional time. The foreman responded "No". Despite the unequivocal response, the Trial Court sent the jury back to the jury room to deliberate further. The next day, the all-white jury returned with a death verdict. When the foreman said "no", the judge should then have let the jury leave, and given Mason time without the death penalty, 15 to life, or 20 to life.
Maurice Mason's petition for Writ of Centiorari was likewise denied Dec. 18, 1998. Contemporaneously with litigating his direct appeals, Maurice filed a petition for post conviction relief pursuant to Ohio Rev, code claiming his conviction and sentence of death were void or voidable under the constitution. Maurice attached affidavits to his petition pursuant to Ohio rev. code in order to demonstrate the need for an evidentiary hearing. maurice requested funds for expert and investigative assistance supported by affidavit. the Trial Court denied Maurice mason's request as "not well taken."
The post-conviction Trial Court summarily denied Maurice's petition without an evidentiary hearing and without permitting discovery. Maurice filed a timely motion to grant relief from judgement (with affidavits attached) which was summarily overruled by the post-conviction Trial Court on December 27th, 1996. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Courts dismissal.
The Supreme Court of Ohio summarily denied Maurice Mason's Descretionary Appeal. Mason then filed his application to reopen pursuant to. The 3rd District Court of Appeals dismissed the application on procedural grounds on Nov. 16, 1999. Mason then timely filed a Notice of Appeal in the Supreme Court of Ohio on Jan. 3rd, 2000. The Supreme Court of Ohio ultimately found Maurice Mason's application to reopen to have been untimely.
Following the exhaustion of his remedies in the State courts, Mason filed his Notice of Intent to file a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and an action for Stay of Execution and appointment of counsel in the Northern District of Ohio on March 8, 1999. The Court granted teh stay of execution and permitted Mason to file his correct petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 25 Corrected Petition.
The warden subsequently filed her Return of Writ and portions of the State Court Record. Maurice filed a motion to expand the record and a motion for an evidentiary hearing. Mason likewise filed his traverse to the retuen of writ, addressing procedural issues as well as merits. The District Court on May 9, 2000, entered an order dismissing Mason's petition for writ of habeas corpus, and denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing.
Maurice Mason then timely filed his notice of appeal. The District Court subsequently granted Mason's request for a Certificate of Appealagility as to all issues.
The verdict and sentence imposed upon Maurice Mason by the Court of Ohio are unreliable. The review provided through direct review and state post-conviction did not provide an adequate means by which to remedy the constitutional violations. The courts failed to provide an adequate counsel and denied funding for expert and investigative assistance to challenge the conviction sentence. the Ohio courts denied an evidentiary hearing. The Ohio court likewise denied Mason due process.
To be continued when futher information is provided.
