The marionette’s illusion

The marionette’s illusion

Before the facts of the case — a word on how convictions like mine are made.

“Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”

This oath is almost certainly one of the most brilliant and comprehensive sentences ever comprised in American jurisprudence. All the lies that have ever been told or ever will be told fall into three categories or strategies; Lies of commission, lies of omission, and lies of influence. This oath covers all three. “To tell the truth,” covers lies of commission. These are the straight forward, bold faced lies. “The whole truth,” covers lies of omission. In this case, it is not what a person says, but what he doesn’t say that constitutes the lie. “And nothing but the truth,” covers lies of influence. When people lie to you successfully it’s often because they say things that manage your perception of them, and thus, the facts.

All too often we witness in our justice system a prosecution teams willingness to push ethical boundaries. Unfortunately, and all too often, the Courts are seemingly acquiescent to this behavior. Indeed, quoting the Court in Moore v. Hopper, a case where detectives were permitted to lie when they stated that the murder weapon had been found, the Court favorably cited the detectives (false) testimony by stating that, “the way to get police work done is to do it, the best way you can.” Then, in Commonwealth v. Cressinger, the Magistrate is quoted as saying, “society and the criminal are at war, and capture by surprise or ambush, or masked battery, is as permissible in one case as in the other.” With this mentality, how can our justice system possibly balance the scale? One finger on this scale should not be tolerated, much less the heavy hand the Courts often allow. The frustration of law enforcement in their quest for justice can clearly be understood. However, where a decisive line is not drawn, allowing deception in the form of direct perjury and or a manipulation of evidence in our courts, we can no longer have confidence in the outcome of those proceedings.

Ethics is the science of moral duty. It deals with the rules of conduct, especially poignant in a system founded on Due Process. Quoting from the book ‘Do no wrong’ by Peter Joy and Kevin McMunigal; “The standard of conduct that lawyers and law enforcement must obey are high, and are as generally followed as the most exalted rules that govern men on earth. They are bound by these standards and must obey them. They may and should fight hard for justice, but they must fight fairly. They may and should state matters honestly and honorably. They may say them with fervor, and all the persuasion in their power. But in saying it, they may not deceive, they must not lie.”

Research reveals a constellation of causes for wrongful convictions, with police and prosecutorial misconduct, as well as faulty scientific evidence leading the way. Unfortunately, Judicial error and or blatant abuse of discretion by the Courts are often a major contributing cause. Unfortunate as well is that inadequate representation by defense counsel more often than not plays a significant role. In part because of the difficulty in defining what constitutes good lawyering in the criminal defense context. In addition to definitional problems, enforcement is problematic as well. The restrictive ‘Strickland’ standard for reversal on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel requiring “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different,” allows most bad lawyering to go un-remedied and un-deterred by the grant of a new trial. Often, the ineffectiveness of counsel comes in the form of their time and or financial mismanagement. More often however, is that they seem to forget that a trial is more of a fact suit than a law suit. Indeed, mismanagement and or lack of research concerning the facts of the case often cause the advocate to over rely on the law to win the day, and is one of the primary reasons winnable cases are lost. This fact brings to mind Quintillian’s advice, given nearly 2000 years ago, yet just as applicable today. “It is less inconvenience to listen to the superfluous than to be left ignorant of what is essential.” Advocacy, without the most minute study and patient preparation is nothing. This concept warrants repeating. No knowledge of the law can be a substitute for a mastery of the facts.

I fully understand that allegations of impropriety forwarded by an accused, and even more so, by a man already convicted, generally receive a lukewarm response by both appellate Courts as well as the general public. Although I have to admit that this type of response is often warranted, there are exceptions. Within the pages of this site you will encounter those who are indeed willing to subvert our system of justice. Moreover, you’ll discover that at times this unprincipled and dishonorable behavior seems to spread like a contagion. Investigating officers, prosecutors, lay and expert witnesses alike are not immune to this contagion. Sadly, neither are defense counsel, or even the Court itself.

This site will reveal just how fragile our system of justice actually is. A fragility that is not due to a lack of rules governing our courts, but a willingness to circumvent these rules in a quest to win, and or, forward one’s professional or personal agendas. These pages will reveal clear overtones of Machiavellian Maxim, ‘the end justifies the means,’ and how this aphorism permeated this investigation and subsequent trial. This concept is of course plainly incompatible with our Constitutional concept of ordered liberty. Although it is regrettable that I must confront this unprincipled behavior long after my freedom was taken from me, confront it I will. I did not commit this crime. In Erskine’s summation in the defense of Thomas Paine, he stated that; “The first thing that presents itself in the discussion of any subject is to state distinctly and with precision what the question is, and when prejudice and misrepresentation have been exerted, to distinguish it accurately from what it is not.” That is precisely what you can expect from this site.

The records of contemporary criminal trials are replete with instances of abuse when it comes to the rules of evidence. In light of the secretive nature of pre-trial preparation, prosecutors have an inordinate opportunity to shape, polish, and even manufacture a witness’s testimony. Unfortunately, this behavior is often impossible to prove given the symbiotic nature of the relationship. To be sure, ethical rules admonish prosecutors to respect and apply them in the service of truth, unfortunately, in their quest for obtaining a conviction these rules are often twisted, or circumvented entirely, and as will be shown on this site, this indifference to rule of law applied when prosecutors dealt with lay and expert witnesses alike. Indeed, herein you will learn just how far prosecutors are willing to go to acquire a conviction. Exactly how they are able to convince an expert to shade or distort the facts to fit their narrative. Just how they can, and do, convince lay witnesses to either intentionally, or sometimes inadvertently misrepresent the facts, and thus, mislead the Court or jurists.

Unfortunately, using expert and lay witnesses as puppets to insure a conviction, is not necessarily exclusive. At times, prosecutors are able to control the actions, or inaction, of defense counsel, and sadly, even the Court itself. All too often the jury is either oblivious to, or, chooses to ignore the blatantly obvious strings being pulled, and instead immerse themselves in the prosecution’s narrative. The marionette’s illusion.