Another Disenfranchising Mechanism

The Honorable Judge Tracie Todd was elected by the people to bring fairness, transparency, and her intellectual interpretation of the law of the land into the Alabama court system. Now the Honorable Judge Tracie Todd has become a victim of the political game that's being played by the corrupt political leaders in Alabama that share the views of the delegates from the Constitutional Convention of 1901, which was to establish white supremacy by way of law, and to discriminate and disenfranchise.

The Honorable Judge Tracie Todd has stood on her understanding of the laws and had based her rulings on the basic evolving standards of decency, which is the evolution of the law. She doesn't share the mindset of many Alabama judges who believe in the old Jim Crow law. The Honorable Judge Tracie Todd is not one of those Alabama judges who ignores the fact that Alabama laws deny citizens their rights that the U.S. Constitution guarantees, but the Alabama Constitution intentionally left out. It is because of her principles and her desire to bring forth justice and equal protection under the law into the Alabama courts that she is being black balled.

No one in the state of Alabama wants to take the necessary steps to attack the Alabama Criminal Code even though it had been stated by one justice "that no law in the state of Alabama could withstand an equal protection challenge." Why? Because the courtrooms are their bread and butter, and if you challenge Alabama law, you will be reprimanded just as the Honorable Judge Tracie Todd has been. This corrupt atmosphere that lies within the court system effects every branch of government in this state, just as it was planned in 1901 during the constitutional convention.

Now the Honorable Judge Tracie Todd has been removed from the bench and the people have been denied the right to have the elected official whom they voted for. This is nothing more than another means of disenfranchisement.

Amendment XV

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies as well to the manner of its exercise.

Well this in mind, once the franchise is granted to the people to vote for who they desire to represent them in public office, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the ongoing saga against the Honorable Judge Tracie Todd…

In 2021 the Judicial Inquiry Committee of Alabama sanctioned the Honorable Judge Tracie Todd, finding that she violated the following Canons:

Canon 1: A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Canon 2A: A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all

times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the

judiciary.

Canon 2B: A judge should at all times maintain the decorum and temperance befitting his

office and should avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the

judicial office into disrepute.

Canon 3A(1): A judge should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in

it. He (or she) should be unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of

criticism.

Canon 3A(4): A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full right to be heard according to law, and, except as authorized by law, neither initiate nor consider ex parte communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding. A judge, however, may obtain the advice of a disinterested and impartial expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before him; provided however, a judge should use discretion in such cases and, if the judge considers that justice would require it, should give notice to the parties of the person consulted and the substance of the advice, and afford the parties reasonable opportunity to respond.

Canon 3C(1): A judge should disqualify himself (or herself) in a proceeding in which his (or her) disqualification is required by law or his (or her) impartiality might reasonably be questioned,

These violations stem from the Honorable Judge Tracie Todd acting in her official capacity when declaring Alabama's death penalty sentencing scheme unconstitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Hurst v. Florida, ruling Florida's death penalty sentencing scheme unconstitutional, the same sentencing scheme the state of Alabama modeled its scheme after, as acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court and argued by the state of Alabama in Harris v Alabama in 1995. The same was argued in an amicus brief filed by the Attorney General of Alabama in Hurst.

The Honorable Judge Tracie Todd was, in 2021, removed from the bench based on the Judicial Inquiry Committee's findings, with her punishment being suspenion from the bench for 90 days. Now she has been suspended again.

The inception of all of the Honorable Judge Tracie Todd's legal matters began when she followed suit with the United States Supreme Court's holding in Hurst v Florida. However, there wasn't much backlash when a Tuscaloosa Circuit Court judge declared §12-15-204, Ala. Code 1975 unconstitutional.

§12-15-204 provides in pertinent part:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who has attained the age of 16 years at the time of the conduct charged and who is charged with the commission of any act or conduct, which if committed by an adult would constitute any of the following, shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of juvenile court but shall be charged, arrested, and tried as an adult:

(4) A felony which has as an element thereof the causing of death or serious physical injury.

Nor was there any backlash when the Montgomery Circuit Court judge Welch declared §15-20-22(a)(1) unconstitutional as it applied to a defendant before the court. And I'm quite sure that anyone who wasn't representatives of record were able to speak.

So, why the backlash with the Honorable Judge Tracie Todd?

It appears to be a violation of her right to equal protection...hmm…It seems as if the Judiciary Inquiry Committee's findings are nothing more than an attempt to disenfranchise the voters who voted for the Honorable Judge Tracie Todd. Voters who wanted to put someone on the bench who would be fair and interpret the law and change the stigma of systemic injustice in the judicial system.

In closing, we want to say that the Honorable Judge Tracie Todd is entitled to equal protection of the law and should not be discriminated against because she doesn't want to play ball with those who are corrupt.

Randy Lewis and Mario Woodward

Felony Murder Rule

The doctrine holding that any death resulting from the commission or attempted commission of a dangerous felony is murder.

§13A-6-2(a)(3)

He or she commits or attempts to commit arson in the first degree, burglary in the first or second degree, escape in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, rape in the first degree, robbery in any degree, sodomy in the first degree, aggravated child abuse under Section 26-15-3.1 , or any other felony clearly dangerous to human life and, in the course of and in furtherance of the crime that he or she is committing or attempting to commit, or in immediate flight therefrom, he or she, or another participant if there be any, causes the death of any person.

§ 13A-6-2(c)

Murder is a Class A felony; provided, that the punishment for murder or any offense committed under aggravated circumstances by a person 18 years of age or older, as provided by Article 2 of Chapter 5 of this title, is death or life imprisonment without parole, which punishment shall be determined and fixed as provided by Article 2 of Chapter 5 of this title or any amendments thereto. The punishment for murder or any offense committed under aggravated circumstances by a person under the age of 18 years, as provided by Article 2 of Chapter 5, is either life imprisonment without parole, or life, which punishment shall be determined and fixed as provided by Article 2 of Chapter 5 of this title or any amendments thereto and the applicable Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure.

§13A-5-39

As used in this article, these terms shall be defined as follows:

(1) Capital offense. An offense for which a defendant shall be punished by a sentence of death or life imprisonment without parole, or in the case of a defendant who establishes that he or she was under the age of 18 years at the time of the capital offense, life imprisonment, or life imprisonment without parole, according to the provisions of this article.

(2) During. The term as used in Section 13A-5-40(a) means in the course of or in connection with the commission of, or in immediate flight from the commission of the underlying felony or attempt thereof.

(5) Murder and murder by the defendant. Shall be defined as provided in Section 13A-5-40(b) .

§13A-5-40

(a) The following are capital offenses:

(1) Murder by the defendant during a kidnapping in the first degree or an attempt thereof committed by the defendant.

(2) Murder by the defendant during a robbery in the first degree or an attempt thereof committed by the defendant.

(3) Murder by the defendant during a rape in the first or second degree or an attempt thereof committed by the defendant; or murder by the defendant during sodomy in the first or second degree or an attempt thereof committed by the defendant.

(4) Murder by the defendant during a burglary in the first or second degree or an attempt thereof committed by the defendant.

(8) Murder by the defendant during sexual abuse in the first or second degree or an attempt thereof committed by the defendant.

(9) Murder by the defendant during arson in the first or second degree committed by the defendant; or murder by the defendant by means of explosives or explosion.

§13A-5-40(b)

(b) Except as specifically provided to the contrary in the last part of subdivision (a)(13) of this section, the terms “murder” and “murder by the defendant” as used in this section to define capital offenses mean murder as defined in Section 13A-6-2(a)(1) , but not as defined in Section 13A-6-2(a)(2) and (3) . Subject to the provisions of Section 13A-5-41 , murder as defined in Section 13A-6-2(a)(2) and (3) , as well as murder as defined in Section 13A-6-2(a)(1) , may be a lesser included offense of the capital offenses defined in subsection (a) of this section.

___________________________________________

The application of the Capital Statute in Alabama violates the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution and corresponding Articles of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 and state and federal law.

★ "In a prosecution for a capital offense, the felony-murder doctrine has no place in securing a conviction of the offense charged, Alabama Code 1975, § 13A-5-40(c); Ex parte Ritter, 375 So.2d 270, 273-75 (Ala. 1979), vacated on other grounds, Ritter v. Alabama, 448 U.S. 903, 100 S.Ct. 3044, 65 L.Ed.2d 1133 (1980)." Connolly v. State, 500 So.2d 57, 62 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), affirmed, 500 So.2d 68 (Ala. 1986). "A defendant who does not personally commit the act of killing which constitutes the murder is not guilty of a capital offense . . . unless that defendant is legally accountable for the murder because of complicity in the murder itself under the provisions of section 13A-2-23 [defining complicity], in addition to being guilty of the other elements of the capital offense. . . ." Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-5-40(c).

We have previously held that, while the legislature has prohibited the use of the felony-murder rule to supply the necessary intent in capital felony trials, the accomplice liability doctrine may be used to convict a non-triggerman accomplice if, but only if, the defendant was an accomplice in the intentional killing as opposed to being an accomplice merely in the underlying felony. Ritter v. State, 375 So.2d 270 (Ala. 1979).

No defendant is guilty of a capital offense unless he had an intent to kill, and that intent to kill cannot be supplied by the felony-murder doctrine Lewis v. State 456 So. 2d 413 416 (Ala. Cr. App. 1984). Thomas v. State, 452 So. 2d 899, 903 "An oral instruction on subsection (3) felony-murder constitutes a fatal variance from an indictment charging subsection (1) intentional murder unless felony-murder can be deemed a lesser-included offense of intentional murder," which is not possible under Alabama statutory scheme.)

A defendant commits the crime of murder of the intentional killing type if with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of that person or another person. A person acts intentionally with respect to a result or to conduct when his purpose is to cause that result or to engage in that conduct. The defendant must intentionally, as opposed to negligently, accidentally or recklessly, cause the death of the deceased in order to invoke the capital statute. The fact that someone dies or is killed during the course of a robbery does not automatically provide that intent. The intent to kill must be real and specific in order to invoke the capital statute.

(Above from Russaw v. State 572 So. 2d 1288)

1 An "impressive majority" of jurisdictions which have considered this question in the context of a felony-murder charge have "concluded that an accused is not guilty of a felony-murder where he forms felonious intent only after he commits the killing." Commonwealth v. Spallone, 267 Pa.Super. 486, 489, 406 A.2d 1146, 1147 (1979), citing United States v. Bolden, 169 U.S.App.D.C. 60, 514 F.2d 1301 (1975); United States v. Mack, 151 U.S.App.D.C. 162, 466 F.2d 333, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 952, 93 S. Ct. 297, 34 L. Ed. 2d 223 (1972); Long v. United States, 364 A.2d 1174 (D.C.Ct.App.1976); People v. Gonzales, 66 Cal. 2d 482, 58 Cal. Rptr. 361, 426 P.2d 929 (1967); State v. Snow, 383 A.2d 1385 (Me.1978); State v. Montgomery, 191 Neb. 470, 215 N.W.2d 881 (1974) (semble); People v. Joyner, 26 N.Y.2d 106, 308 N.Y.S.2d 840, 257 N.E.2d 26 (1970); accord, LaFave and Scott, Criminal Law, supra, § 71 at 558; Note, 42 Dick.L.Rev. 85 (1938).

2 O'Pry v. State, 642 S.W.2d 748, 761-62 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) ("proof of a robbery committed as an `afterthought' and unrelated to a murder" is insufficient to show that a defendant committed the murder during the course of committing a robbery).

Although, in a prosecution for a capital offense, the felony-murder doctrine has no place in securing a conviction of the offense charged, Alabama Code 1975, § 13A-5-40(c); Ex parte Ritter, 375 So. 2d 270, 273-75 (Ala.1979), vacated on other grounds, Ritter v. Alabama, 448 U.S. 903, 100 S. Ct. 3044, 65 L. Ed. 2d 1133 (1980), this same principle is applicable in a capital case--an accused is not guilty of capital robbery-murder where the intent to rob was formed only after the victim was killed. Beverly v. State, 439 So. 2d 758 (Ala.Cr.App.1983).

To sustain a conviction under § 13A-5-40(a)(2) for capital murder-robbery, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) a "robbery in the first degree or an attempt thereof," as defined by § 13A-8-41, (2) a "murder" as defined by § 13A-6-2(a)(1), and (3) that the murder was committed "during" the robbery or attempted robbery, i.e. that the murder was committed "in the course of or in connection with the commission of, or in immediate flight from the commission of" the robbery or attempted robbery in the first degree. § 13A-5-39(2).

Beverly v. State 439 So. 2d 758(1983)

A conviction based upon a record wholly devoid of any evidence of a crucial element of the offense charged is constitutionally infirm." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 314, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2786, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654 (1960). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a defendant in a criminal case against conviction "except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged." In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); Frederick v. State, 20 Ala. App. 336, 102 So. 146 (1924).

THREE PHASES TO A CAPITAL TRIAL: CULPABILITY, PENALTY, SENTENCING

Counsel must zealously investigate capital case on all fronts. Upon adequate and complete investigation, counsel develop such insight that inform them of their chances of an: Acquittal or Mistrial or Conviction of a lesser included, Life without the possibility of parole, and to have the judge not interfere with the jury's recommendation of sentencing when it's life without parole.

If counsel is successful at the culpability phase of capital trial in having their client acquitted, then the penalty and sentencing phase of a capital trial are voided. If counsel is successful at the culpability phase of trial in having their client acquitted of capital murder but convicted of a lesser included offense of: Felony murder, Murder, Manslaughter, etc. Sentence for felony murder ranges from 30 years to life. Murder 10 years to life. Manslaughter 20 years to life. If a life sentence is received for any of the lesser included offenses, it is because of a prior conviction of a felony related offense.

However, if the client is convicted of capital murder, the attorney should be well prepared for the sentencing phase of the trial.

Through the pretrial investigation, counsel should have discovered any and all mitigating factors to present to the jury and judge in effort to plead for the life of their client. This includes but not limited to, documentation, records, character, or facts. Witnesses, including mental health witnesses, if necessary, etc.

The attorney must be in tune with the criminal statutes in which their client is charged...

Ex: Defendants are often charged under the capital offense section 13A-5-40(a)(2) Murder by the defendant during a robbery in the first degree or an attempt thereof committed by the defendant...

1) The attorney must be aware that the prosecutor has the burden of proving that the robbery was in progress before the act of murder or that the murder was committed so that the robbery can take place.

2) If there is more than one defendant charged under this same offense section of the capital murder statute (making everyone codefendants), the attorney must know that neither client can be charged capitally, since there is no first degree robbery by law...

13A-8-41 Robbery in the first degree

(a) A person commits the crime of robbery in the first degree if he violates Section 13A-8-43 and he:

(1) Is armed with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument; or

(2) Causes serious physical injury to another.

(b) Possession then and there of an article used or fashioned in a manner to lead any person who is present reasonably to believe it to be a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, or any verbal or other representation by the defendant that he is then and there so armed, is prima facie evidence under subsection (a) of this section that he was so armed.

13A-8-42 Robbery in the second degree

(a) A person commits the crime of robbery in the second degree if he violates Section 13A-8-43 and he is aided by another person actually present.

(b) Robbery in the second degree is a Class B felony.

13A-8-43 Robbery in the third degree

(a) A person commits the crime of robbery in the third degree if in the course of committing a theft he:

(1) Uses force against the person of the owner or any person present with intent to overcome his physical resistance or physical power of resistance; or

(2) Threatens the imminent use of force against the person of the owner or any person present with intent to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property.

(b) Robbery in the third degree is a Class C felony.

When there is more than one person involved in the crime of robbery, the violation is committed under 13A-8-42, Robbery in the second degree.

Leaving that no person can be legally charged with capital murder under the offense section of the capital statute 13A-5-40(a)(2).

Similarly with the following offense sections under the capital statute:

13A-5-40(a)(1)

13A-5-40(a)(3)

13A-5-40(a)(4)

13A-5-40(a)(8)

13A-5-40(a)(9)

13A-5-40(a)(12)

The prosecutor bears the burden of proving that the aggravator in each of these offense sections were in process leading to the murder, or that the aggravator was connected to the murder, or that the murder was committed in the attempt of the aggravator, or that the murder was committed while the defendant was fleeing from the aggravator.

Capital offense sections:

13A-5-40(a)(17)

13A-5-40(a)(18)

The prosecution had the burden of proving that the murder was gang related and was committed during a drive-by shooting, which makes the vehicle an actual instrument used in the murder.

Defendants in capital cases are routinely denied the right to effective representation by their attorney's failure to hold the state (prosecution) to their burden of proof.

To be continued...

Roulette of the Wheel

The administration of justice is the most sacred resource we have to ensure that justice is meted out in accordance with what justice demands pursuant to the organic law ratified by our elected officials as an expressed will of the people represented.

To gamble with one's liberty and life at the whim of a government representative against a citizen thereof does not comport with the vision of the people.

In the late 80s Mr. Jimmy Dill became a victim of "Roulette of The Wheel" when he robbed and attempted to kill Mr. Leon Shaw.

Mr. Dill was initially charged with Robbery in the First Degree. 13A-8-41(a)(1). and Attempt To Murder. 13A-4-2(a)

Mr. Leon Shaw was made to be dependent upon round the dark clock care as a result of the gunshot wound. The State argument against Mr. Jimmy Dill at trial was that Mr. Leon Shaw died months later as a result of the gunshot wound he

received from the robbery and the attempt on his life. The initial State's expert testified to the same because Mr. Shaw passed away within 12 months of the Robbery and Attempt to Murder incident, Mr. Dill was charged capitally with murder during robbery in the first degree. And convicted for the offense as charged after a jury trial.

As it came to be, and as was known by the state at the time of trial and after, and as Mr. Shaw's doctor who treated him before his death, established that Mr. Shaw did not die as a result of the gunshot wound, but as the result of dehydration. Dr. Shugerman swore by affidavit that Mr. Shaw's immediate cause of death was "Severe m

etabolic derangement and multiple organ failure associated with severe dehydration.

With these findings by the very physician who treated Mr. Shaw up until his death, it is very vivid that Mr. Shaw's death was a result of medical neglect from his home care taker... However an Alabama law permitted for Mr Dill to be charged as liable for the death of Mr. Shaw. See §13A-2-5(a) Ala. Cade. 1975 "A person is criminally liable if the result would not have occurred but for his conduct, operating alone or concurrently, with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the actor clearly insufficient"

The facts on appeal doesn't mention Mr. Shaw's caretaker after being from the hospital.

Dill v. State 767 So.2d 366; 1999 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 24 (Ala. Crime App. 1999) Mr. Dill was a victim of the roulette of the wheel of who receives justice here in Alabama because it is clear from the sworn affidavit of Mr. Shaw's physician served as a mitigator to the charges brought against Mr. Dill.

Another victiae of Alabama's Roulette of The wheel is Randy Bell. Mr Bell was sentenced to die for the death of Charles Mims of Chilton County, Alabama. The State successfully argued to the jury Mr. Bell killed Mr. Mims during a robbery. A state witness testified against Mr. Bell at trial that: Mr. Bell shot Mr. Mims twice in the head in a trench and left him there. However, when this witness led police to the trench where Mr. Mims was alledgely shot twice in the head and killed, no body was there to be discovered nor any blood trace nor other evidence indicating that a murder occurred. Mr. Mims body was and has never been discovered. Mr. Bell languished on death row until his death of natural causes. While Mr. Bell languished on death row for the alleged murder of Mr. Mims, another deathrow inmate who is the blood cousin of Mr. Mims found out that Mr. Bell was convicted and sentenced to death for the robbery/murder of Mr. Mims and told Mr. Bell that Mr. Mims was his cousin and that he was alive and well and had just recently attended a family reunion not long before he was incarcerated. This inmate told Mr. Bell that Mr. Mims faked his death for the insurance money and he and his wife fled to Mexico. However, before any court had the occasion to hear this evidence, Mr. Bell died.

As the Roulette wheel continues, more innocent men become victims.

Toforest Johnson has been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death for the murderr of Deputy Sheriff Hardy of Jefferson County. While incarcerated in the Jefferson County Jail on unrelated charges Mr. Johnson was charged with Capital Murder for the death of Deputy Sheriff Hardy, along with two other men who were later acquitted after a jury trial. Initially, Mr. Johnson's first trial ended with a hung jury in which a mistrial was declared. At the first trial, Mr. Johnson's attorney presented an eyewitness who saw the individual who shot Deputy Sheriff Hardy. This eyewitness described the individual as tall,, approximately 6 ft. The State's Main witness testified she overheard Mr. Johnson admit to killing Sheriff Hardy over a telephone conversation.

After the mistrial of the first trial, during the second trial Mr. Johnson's lawyers failed to call as a witness the eye witness who described the shooter at 6 ft tall, leaving the jury to only hear evidence from state witnesses who testified that Mr. Johnson admitted killing Deputy Sheriff Hardy over a telephone call.

A young lady testified at alll three defendant's trials that each individual shot the fatal shot that killed Deputy Sheriff Hardy. Each defendant had separate

On collateral appeal Mr. Johnson attacked his wrongfully obtained conviction and sentence. It was during this appeal process that it was discovered that the attorneys who represented Mr. Johnson at trial failed to present witnesses who placed Mr. Johnson across town at the time of Deputy Sheriff Hardy's death, the young lady who testified at trial. that Mr. Johnson is the one who Shot Deputy Hardy admitted that she had lied at the trials of each. defendant when she testified, including Mr. Johnson's trial, And that the witness who testified that she heard. Mr. Johnson admit to killing Deputy Sheriff Hardy in a conversation over a telephone was paid $5,000 to make the case for the prosecution.

With all of this evidence being established, Mr. Johnson remains on Alabama's Death Row.

Another victim of Alabama's Roulette of the Wheel of Justice is Randy Lewis. Randy Lewis was falsely accused of Robbery / Murder, Attempt to Murder, Kidnapping of Three individuals. as charged by Indictment in August 2006. Going back to May of 2006, Approximately a month. after Mr. Lewis Arrested pursuant to was arrested pursuant to warrant charging Mr. Lewis with Robbery / Murder of Mr. Frost And Attempted Murder of Ms. Davis, the lead detective testified at a preliminary hearing that "No one had come forth with information about the murder."

However, lead homicide investigator Armstrong knew that eyewitness Michael Towns had told,, homicide investigators that he witnessed Mr. Frost being Shot And killed and Mr. Lewis was NOT present, It wasn't Mr. Lewis who he saw get in the back passenger seat of the vehicle Mr. Frost was

shot and killed in by that person who got in the back passenger seat.

At the the 2006 May preliminary hearing and 2007 trial, the prosecutar and lead detective's theory was that Mr. Frost was killed by the person who entered the back passenger seat of the vehicle Mr. Frost was found deceased in at or between 5:15 pm And 5:30 pm on March 27, 2006 and Ms. Davis was ran over at 5:30pm as witnessed by those who stopped to aid Ms. Davis after being ran over.

However, Mr. Towns told Homicide Investigators that he witnessed Mr. Frost being killed "RIGHT AT DARK." Mr. Towns testimony was never presented by neither trial Counsel nor the prosecution at Mr. Lewis's trial. Fingerprints discovered in the exact locations where detectives abd trial prosecutor, through state witness Vontresa Davis told then jury the perpetrator got in the back passenger seat and shot Mr. Frost in the back of head, then forced Ms. Davis out of her vehicle into another vehicle with two other guys. The perpetrator then got back into Ms. Davis vehicle in which her sun and niece was still in, followed the car Ms. Davis was forced in, and ran her over after she jumped out of the vehicle she was forced into. The fingerprints found on the passenger side door re not Mr. Lewis fingerprints. And an eyewitness to the shooting death. of Mr. Frost, who the state denied existed, told detectives when asked was it Randy Lewis, "I ain't gone lie on nobody, I ain't see him out there."

Sherman Collin's became a victim of Alabama's Roulette of the Wheel when he came up from his hometown of New Orleans, Louisiana on a family visit with his girlfriend and kids. Mr. Collins didn't want to accompany his girlfriend and kids on the trip to Sumter, County. Alabama (out of

concerns of missing his traditional Father's Day meal cooked by his mother) After being assured by his girlfriend that they will be back in time to make the Father's Day tradition; Mr. Collins. agreed to accompanying his family on the trip. Arriving at his girlfriend's sister's home, who herself had a boyfriend who was the father of her kids, during their stay Mr. Collins attended a concert in which local artists performed musical acts. At the conclusion of the concert, a young man Mr. Collins was introduced to by one of the locals was shot and killed. After the gunshot, Mr. Collins disbursed along with the rest of the crowd. Not being able to run, Mr. Collins walked away as quickly as possible until he made it to safety. No one ever saw a gun in Mr. Collins hands, before during or after the shooting. Days later, Mr Collins and his family returned to New Orleans in time for the Father's Day dinner at his mother's home. Weeks later Mr Collins was arrested by U.S. Marshalls for the murderr of the young man who was killed in Sumter County Alabama.

The Roulette of the Wheel extends to the attempted murders of both Alan Miller and Kenneth Smith as well as the torturous death of Joe Nathan James.

Joe James appeals were over & done with around 4:30 p.m. on the day the State of Alabama torturously murdered him. He was placed on the So why gurney around 5:24 pm. & his time of death was around 9:27 pm. So why are these media outlets perpetuating all of this "fake news" as Donald Trump would say???

Allen Eugene Miller was strapped to the gurney around 6pm. His appeals were still pending but the State of Alabama was preparing him to be executed before his appeals ended around 9:10 p.m. That left the State with at least another 2 hours and 50 minutes or so to find any veins necessary to execute Mr. Miller. This has been proven by court records. So Why are these media outlets perpetuating "fake news"??

Mr. Kenneth Eugene Smith was strapped to the gurney around 8pm, there was a "stay'' in place on his appeals during this time. Yet the State of Alabama was preparing him to be executed. Mr. Smith never knew about the "stay'' until after his execution was called off. Anyways, the United States Supreme Court cleared the way for Mr. Smith to be executed around 10:23p.m. leaving ample enough time to complete a 15 to 20 minute task. So why are these media outlets perpetuating Governor Kay Ivey's lies that her officials didn't have enough time to do their job. This is ridiculous & media outlets around the state know that this is "fake news" so why are they still promoting it??

I thought that reporters had a duty to inform the public on facts when they had them. Are not these reporters duties to find a "credible source" for every story, investigate what the source & other witnesses say, and get permission from their supervisors to print the facts?

If this is so? Why are there so many lies being printed when it's dealing with Alabama's death penalty? Is it some sort of conspiracy going on to withhold information from the citizens of this state? Or is it that Alabama news is a gateway to perpetuate lies to mislead the citizens on how incompetent Alabamas state officials really are when it comes to performing their duties as executioners?

Whatever the answer may be? It's all "fake news" so stop promoting it!!!