ALABAMA’S DECLARED INNOCENT

 

 

 

For years Alabama has been passing laws to ensnare the „Innocent People“ who are citizens within its borders. Dating all the way back to the dark days of slavery, “Innocent People” have been the burden bearers of LAWS passes down by state LEGISLATURE and enforced by the CRIMINAL COURTS that makes up its CIRCUS OF A JUSTICE SYSTEM. We all know how the cowards who called themselves the Klu Klux Klan would cover their faces with hooded sheets and run off in African American’s homes, drag out the men or man, could his hands behind him, place a rope around his neck and hang him from a tree in front of his home, killing him and leaving his corps to be seen by his mother, wife and children. This was the LAW of the land (state). This was to keep the African Americans in their place. Beneath the Caucasian Americans. We ALL know how the cowards who called themselves the Klu Klux Klan would lynch any African American man for looking at or speaking to a white woman. This too was the LAW of the land (state). We ALL know how African Americans and Caucasian Americans wasn’t allowed to play with each other … How they wasn’t allowed to go to school together. This too was the LAW of the land (state). It was the LAW of the land (state), that if a Caucasian and African American committed the same offense. It was the LAW of the land (state) that if a Caucasian killed another Caucasian they were given the most severe punishment allowed (death).

 

However, if a Caucasian killed an African American they were either never charged or convicted of a lesser crime and given the minimum sentence allowed. In either case, if an African American committed a crime against a Caucasian they were always given the harshest sentence allowed (up to death).

 

Since the Furman v. Georgia ruling in the 70’s that struck down the “killing machine”, and the Coker v. Georgia ruling in which the “killing machine” was reinstated, only changed the use of “racial” content in the statutes that allowed for capital punishment to be imposed. Now the death penalty is widely applied to those who are poor … and more frequently applied to African Americans.

 

Racist Alabama: “The Scottsboro Boys”

 

Alabama’s judicial system has always been riddled with racism.

 

83 years ago nine African American teenagers were first accused of raping two Caucasian American women … The two Caucasian American women accused the nine of raping them to avoid being arrested for breaking the law by boarding a freight train without paying. The nine teenage African American boys were later convicted and all but the youngest of them were sentenced to death. After years of litigation the 8 teenagers were freed from death row and all 9 teenagers were later released. These 9 African American teenagers became to be famously known as “The Scottsboro Boys”. 82 years after this near fatal event, the Scottsboro Boys are all deceased, but they have now been pardoned of the crime they were falsely accused of, and wrongfully convicted and condemned for… Sad story is, “this action of pardon comes after all of the “Scottsboro Boys” has died.

 

Walter McMillian

 

Walter McMillian was falsely accused, wrongfully arrested, wrongfully indicted for the robbery and murder of Ronda Morrison. Count I and II of the indictment reads as follows:

 

Count I

 

“The Grand Jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment, Walter McMillian, alias Johnny D. McMillian and Ralph Myers … did, intentionally cause the death of Ronda Morrison by shooting her with a pistol in violation of Section 13A-6-2 of Code of Alabama and the said Walter McMillian, alias Johnny D. McMillian and Ralph Myers caused said death during the time that the said Walter McMillian, alias Johnny D. McMillian and Ralph Myers did in the course of committing or attempting to commit a theft of $ 35,00 in lawful United States currency, the property of Rick Blair, use force against the person of Ronda Morrison, with intent to overcome her physical resistance or physical power of resistance while the said Walter McMillian, alias Johnny D. McMillian was armed with a deadly weapon to-wit: a pistol, in violation of section 13A-8-41 of the Code of Alabama, all which is in violation of section 13A-5-40(a)(2) of the Code of Alabama …”

 

Count II

 

“The Grand Jury of said county further charge that before the finding of this indictment, Walter McMillian, alias Johnny D. McMillian and Ralph Myers … did, intentionally cause the death of Ronda Morrison, by shooting her with a pistol, in violation of section 13A-6-2 of the Code of Alabama and the said Walter McMillian, alias Johnny D. McMillian and Ralph Myers caused said death during the time that the said Walter McMillian, alias Jonny D. McMillian and Ralph Myers did, in the course of committing or attempting to commit a theft of $ 35,00 in lawful United States currency, the property of Ronda Morrison, use force against the person of Ronda Morrison, with intent to overcome her physical resistance or physical power of resistance, while the said Walter McMillian, alias Johnny D. McMillian, was armed with a deadly weapon, to-wit: a pistol, in violation of section 13A-8-41 of the Code of Alabama, all of which is in violation of section 13A-5-40(a)(2) of the Code of Alabama, …”

 

Walter McMillian was ultimately convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by the presiding judge, who overrode a juries recommendation of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole by a vote of 5 for death and 7 for life imprisonment without parole. Walter McMillian conviction rested on the perjured testimony of 3 witnesses … Joe Hightower, Bill Hooks jr. and Ralph Bernard Myers. Hightower and Hooks testimony served as  evidence to place McMillian on scene of crime and to corroborate the testimony of Myers, McMillian’s alleged accomplice … McMillian presented (through his attorney) his defense which consisted of family members who testified that, “he was home preparing for family cook out …” The jury rejected McMillians defense and convicted him.

 

Years after Walter McMillians wrongful conviction and death sentence his innocence was proven. His attorney, Bryan Stevenson, believed in his innocence and fought very hard to secure Walter’s freedom.

 

In turn, Walter’s defense at trial was proven to be true and all key witnesses for prosecution recanted their trial testimonies and admitted to perjuring themselves. The victim was a Caucasian American woman. Defendant was an African American Man who sold marijuana and dated Caucasian American women which is still frowned upon in the State of Alabama. Officials didn’t like the act and, therefore, didn’t like Walter …

 

Anthony Ray Hinton

 

Anthony Ray Hinton was falsely accused, wrongfully convicted and wrongfully sentenced to death for two capital murder offenses that he didn’t not commit. The offenses were made capital by the underlining felony of robbery. February of 1985 a restaurant manager in the Birmingham area was shot and killed during the course of an armed robbery.

 

Another restaurant manager was shot and killed in the Birmingham area of the same year during the month of July. Both crimes were similar to one another. A ‘third’ crime occurred during the same month of July in 1985, however, the victim survived. A 38-caliber pistol was used during each of the above crimes. The victim of the ‘third’ crime allegedly identified Anthony Ray Hinton from a photographic array.

 

Anthony Ray Hinton’s mother was raided by the Birmingham police unit and a 38-caliber pistol was discovered, which belonged to his mother. The pistol was corroded and very old, for his mother had this gun for some time.

 

Anthony was arrested, tried and convicted then sentenced on the basis of the testimony of the victim from the ‘third’ crime, which was similar (3^rd crime) to how the other two crimes were committed. Anthony Ray Hinton’s alibi was, he was at work on the days that these crimes were committed and during the time in which they were committed. Anthony’s supervisor and co-workers testified to this at trial, but the jury rejected it. “Coincidently”, after the incarceration of Anthony Ray Hinton the same crimes continued to occur …

 

A blind eye was turned to their occurrence, since police felt they had the right guy. The state used the ‘third’ crime, which the victim survived and testified at Anthony’s trial, to connect Anthony to the first and second crimes, in which the victims were killed, because of the similarities with all three crimes.

 

However, Anthony Ray Hinton was not convicted of the crime, never charged, nor tried for the crime, “which was similar to the first two crimes”, against the ‘third’ victim who testified to identifying Anthony Ray Hinton as the assailant …

 

29 years later

 

Anthony Ray Hinton still lingers on Alabama death row fighting for his life and freedom.

 

In 2008, it was undisputably proven that the gun (38-caliber) found in Anthony’s mother’s home could not have been the murder weapon. Defense, ‘tool marks and ballistic’, experts one of which is a former FBI toolmark identification expert, could not conclude that any of the six bullets had been fired from the gun discovered in Anthony’s mother’s home. The state did not submit any rebuttal evidence at the 2008 evidentiary hearing. The new defense experts contacted the expert that the state used during Anthony’s trial in 1986 and asked how he came up with his determination that the gun found in Anthony’s mother’s home was the murder weapon, but he refused to cooperate. Read more at: NexisLexis “Anthony Ray Hinton v. Alabama”

 

William John Ziegler

 

William John Ziegler was convicted of murder made capital, because it was committed during the course of a kidnapping, a violation of §13A-5-40(a)(1) Ala.Code 1975. By a vote of 11-1, the jury recommended that Ziegler be sentenced to death.

 

The trial court accepted that recommendation and sentenced Ziegler to death. This court ultimately affirmed Ziegler’s conviction and sentence in Ziegler v. State 886 So. 2d 127 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).

 

On November 2, 2005, Ziegler filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., in which he challenged his conviction and resulting death sentence. Ziegler amended his petition three times. Zeigler’s fourth and final amended petition was filed on June 15, 2010. The Circuit Court summarily dismissed several of Ziegler’s claims, but held an evidentiary hearing to address the remainder. After a lengthy hearing, the Circuit Court held, for various reasons, that “Ziegler’s constitutional guarantees were not fulfilled”.

 

The Circuit Court granted Ziegler’s petition and held that Ziegler was entitled to a new trial. The state now appeals.

 

The facts underlying Ziegler’s conviction were set out in great detail in Ziegler v. State, 886 So. 2d at 130-139. However, a brief summary of the evidence will be helpful for a clear understanding of the proceedings below.

 

Ziegler and three other individuals – William Randall, James Bennett, and Patricia Davis – were arrested and ultimately indicted for the capital murder of Russell Allen Baker. The state presented evidence indicating that several people including Baker, Bennett, Davis and Randall gathered at Ziegler’s apartment on the evening of February 19, 2000. At some point during the evening, Bennett, Randall and Ziegler began to severely bat Baker. Davis also joined in on the beating and hit Baker with a golf club. At some point after the beating stopped, Bennett, Randall and Ziegler walked Baker out of the apartment in the direction of a wooded area near the complex.

 

At Ziegler’s trial, Randall testified that he, Bennett and Ziegler waked Baker down a dirt road behind the apartment complex. Randall testified that he stabbed Baker as they were walking and that Ziegler then ordered Baker into the woods with them. According to Randall, Ziegler then stabbed Baker in the head and chest. Randall then walked out of the woods and Bennett took his place.

 

A few minutes later, Randall testified that Bennett and Ziegler emerged and that Ziegler told Randall to finish Baker. Randall stated that, when he refused, Ziegler went back into the woods, then returned and announced that he had cut Baker’s throat. Baker’s body was discovered in that wooded area four days later, on February 23, 2000. He had suffered multiple stab wounds and his throat had been cut. During the ensuing investigation, the three men gave conflicting stories about the events leading to Baker’s death. Bennett led police to Baker’s body, but denied any involvement in beating or killing him, instead, implicating Randall and Ziegler. Randall admitted hitting and kicking Baker, but told police that Ziegler was responsible for the murder. Ziegler implicated Bennett and Randall. At Ziegler’s trial, Vickie Bosarge testified that Ziegler attended a party at her home on the night before Baker was killed. According to Bosarge, Ziegler threatened Baker by calling him “a walking dead man”.

 

Ziegler, Bennett, Randall and Davis were ultimately arrested and indicted for intentional murder. The intentional murder charges were later upgraded to capital murder. Bennett pleaded guilty for felony murder and was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. Randall pleaded guilty to intentional murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment, and Davis pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to three years imprisonment.

 

In his petition, filed to the Circuit Court during Rule 32 Proceeding, Ziegler alleged numerous grounds for relief. The issues addressed at the evidentiary hearing covered three types of allegations:

 

That the state had violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by suppressing certain evidence, that Ziegler had received ineffective assistance of counsel, both at trial and on direct appeal, and that two jurors had engaged in misconduct by failing to honestly answer questions during voir dire. In its order, the Circuit Court found that Ziegler proved those claims by a preponderance of the evidence and was therefore entitled to relief under Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P.

 

Brady v. Maryland claim:

 

Requires a defendant to prove “(1) That the prosecution suppressed evidence … (2) That the evidence was of character favorable to his defense, and (3) That the evidence was material.”

 

In the present case, the Circuit Court found that the trial court “entered an ‘open file’ order that required the prosecution to provide the defense with all materials relating to the prosecution of Ziegler.”

 

At trial Vicki Borsarge testimony provided evidence of intent for the prosecution’s case against Ziegler. However, at Ziegler’s Rule 32 hearing, Bosarge recanted her trial testimony, explaining that ‘she had been confused about who she was testifying against, because Ziegler and Randall first names are both William.’ Bosarge testified further that “she had told officers that Ziegler wasn’t the guy who she had heard say ‘Baker was a dead man walking’.”

 

At the Rule 32 evidentiary hearing Bosarge recanted testimony was corroborated by two witnesses, one of which was Bosarge’s son. Both witnesses testified that “ they were questioned by officers during the course of initial investigation and the informed them that ‘Ziegler was not present the night before Bennett’s murder’.” The prosecution knew of the information that the above mentioned witnesses provided to officers during the murder investigation of Bennett, but deliberately failed to provide such information to the defense attorney(s) for Ziegler during trial. The prosecution’s failure to disclose this information to the defense violated both (1) the judges open file discovery order and (2) Brady v. Maryland. The Circuit Court found not only that the state withheld evidence favorable to Ziegler’s defense, but also knowingly presented testimony that it knew or should have known was false.

 

Ineffective assistance of counsel claim:

 

Requires a defendant to prove (1) That counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) that the petitioner was prejudiced by the deficient performance.

 

In its order granting Ziegler’s petition for new trial, the Circuit Court found that Ziegler was unrepresented between March 16, 2000, and October 30, 2000. This ruling was based on evidence that Ziegler produced to the Circuit which revealed that, “neither of his attorneys did any work on his case between March 16, 2000 preliminary hearing and his arraignment on capital murder charges on October 30, 2000. When Ziegler’s attorneys were asked about this, they both responded by saying, “I wasn’t his lawyer.”

 

This proved Ziegler’s first requirement of ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Though, legally, Ziegler wasn’t required to show prejudiced, because of the gross negligence which amounted to his trial attorney(s) being deficient in their performance, Ziegler presented the testimony of several witnesses that tended to refute the state’s contention at trial that Baker (victim) had been killed in the same location where his body was found. Several police officers and expert witnesses testified that, they believed Baker had been killed in a different location and that his body had been dumped in the woods. Ziegler presented this evidence in support of the prejudice requirement, among other things. Stickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 s.ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed. 2d 674(1984) in the case cite for determining an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

 

Strickland:

 

Is also the case cite for determining whether a petitioner was “actually or constructively denied the assistance of counsel altogether, which is when prejudice is legally presumed.” 466 U.S. at 692

 

Juror misconduct claim:

 

In addressing the issue of whether a defendant was deprived of the right to exercise peremptory strikes based on truthful answers from prospective jurors, the Alabama Supreme Court recently reiterated the test to be “whether the defendant might have been prejudiced by a venire member’s failure to make a proper response. Ex parte Stewart, 659 So. 2d 122, 124 (Ala. 1993) emphasis added.

 

In its order, the Circuit Court found that the evidence presented at Ziegler’s Rule 32 hearing “clearly established that juror G. O. failed to respond truthfully to a critical line of inquiry during voir dire”.

 

The juror in question, was asked, along with all other prospective jurors, “Had you ever served as a juror in a capital murder case?”. The juror in question was asked, along with all other prospective jurors, “Had you ever discussed the death penalty, if so, what was your expression?” The prospective juror did not respond truthfully to the above questions asked by Ziegler’s defense counsel, which misled defense counsel into foregoing a for cause challenge and peremptory strike against the juror in question.

 

At the evidentiary hearing Ziegler produced documents that proved that the juror in question had “indeed” served on a capital murder jury in 1994, which returned a guilty verdict and a sentence of death.

 

The above provided proof of juror misconduct. Now Ziegler had to prove that he was prejudiced by such juror misconduct, which he did.

 

It is fundamental to our system of impartial justice that “parties have a right to have questions answered truthfully by prospective jurors to enable them to exercise their discretion wisely in exercising their peremptory strikes.”

 

State v. Freeman, 605 So. 2d 1258, 1259 (Ala. Cr. App. 1992) (quoting Ex parte O’Leary, 438 So. 2d 1372, 1373 (Ala. 1983), quoting in turn Ex parte O’Leary, 417 So. 2d 232, 240 (Ala. 1982)).

 

Where a party has examined the jurors concerning their qualifications, and they do not answer truly, it is manifest that he is deprived of his right of challenge for cause, and is deceived into foregoing his right of peremptory challenge. Ex parte Ledbetter 404 So. 2d 731, 733 (Ala. 1981) (quoting Leach v. State, 31 Ala. App. 390, 18 So. 2d 285, Cert. denied, 245 Ala. 539, 18 So. 2d 289 (1944))

 

Ziegler proved that he was prejudiced through testimony of his trial attorney who testified that, “Because he’s (juror in question) already been down this road before. Typically, if I can do it, I’ll take off anybody that’s ever been on a jury … but, I would have taken him off at least with a peremptory challenge …”

 

Based on the above, the Circuit Court concluded that G. O. “clearly committed misconduct by failing to respond truthfully to a critical line of inquiry during voir dire.”

 

The Circuit Court also held that Ziegler was prejudiced by G. O.’s failure to answer truthfully during voir dire.

 

Therefore Ziegler were granted a new trial on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, Brady violation and juror misconduct …

 

 

 

Please, stay tuned … more to come …