It Happens

It’s sad to thing those who are entrusted to protect the innocent
are the ones the innocent need protecting from the most…
Advertisements

2 Comments Add yours

  1. Arthur L. says:

     
     
    When you where close to him there, did you observed anything about his–about him?
    I mean, I don’t want to say he could have been drunk, I don’t know.
     
    Could you tell whether or not he had been drinking?
    I can, I can, yeah.
     
    Did you smell any alcoholic beverages?
    No, I couldn’t.
     
    All right.
     
    Now he’s getting, louder and stuff. I was just getting really frustrated. He got loud with this gentleman here, I mean, he–this gentleman didn’t say anything.
     
    You’re talking about the gentleman in the kind of greenish coat.
    The bluish coat, yeah. Now I’ve been telling him the whole time, “Lockett, just please leave man.”
     
    Your gesturing——
    I’m getting loud too. He knew this gentleman here and I had asked this gentleman, you know, please, could you just escort him out.
     
    You can probably see the hand gestures that I show him, you know. Yeah, I’m telling him right now, you know, please escort him out, he’s getting pretty bad; he wouldn’t leave. The last thing I wanted to do was call the police on him. I don’t want nobody going to jail for something, can I say–stupid?
    ___________________________
    Feeling extremely annoyed, at the prospects of going to prison Kenaya decided to strike first, and called the police. See trial transcripts at page nine:
     
    ……when you called the police, what did you tell them?
    “Oh, there’s an individual here that is making a lot of racket and confrontational with the customers, and, you know, he wouldn’t leave.”
     
    They asked for his name, I believe, and I told them his name and they said they’d be over in a minute.
     
    All right, when the police got there, what happened?
    There was four, five of them, I believe. They kind of surrounded him in different positions, and the one lady officer, I remember just saying, you know, “The gentleman wants you to leave; just leave the store.
     
    All right, then what happened?
    And I don’t recall, but he did reach in his pocket and that’s when the police kind of, kind of attacked him and held him down and he said he was just going for his wallet and that’s when he kind of resisted and they just handcuffed him after that.
     
    All right, and did they then take him out of the store?
     
    Yes, they took him out of the store.

  2. Arthur L. says:

    Questions:
    \’Questions presented are: \'(a) Whether a request is an indispensable prerequisite to disclosure of exonerating evidence by the State? \'(b) Whether material evidence favorable to an accused should be disclosed by the State without a request where such evidence is not recorded? \'(c) Whether denial of due process of law is contingent upon a request where a State knowingly permits false testimony to remain uncorrected? \'(d) Where a prosecutor shows his entire file to defense counsel at trial, but none of the exonerating items of evidence are contained in said file, does that satisfy the prosecution\’s duty of disclosure? \'(e) Whether nondisclosure of the prosecuting police department is imputable to the prosecution?
    Title18 Part 1 Chapter 79 § 1622. Subornation of perjury
    Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

    Kenaya’s testimony and statements were not interpretations of facts, or inaccurate statements unwittingly made. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts or their recollection may be inaccurate, but not in this case. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the mens rea to commit the act, and to have actually committed the actus reus, as Kenaya and the Port Huron Police has.

    In some countries such as Germany, suspects cannot be heard under oath or affirmation and thus cannot commit perjury, regardless of what they say during their trial. However, Michigan isn’t in Germany.

    Kenaya deliberately and willfully gave false, misleading, and incomplete testimony under oath deliberately perjuring himself.

    Petitioner asserts that the information constituted a governmental concession that Kenaya engaged in the criminal conduct of perjury, obstruction of justice, during his appearance as a government witness at defendant’s trial. He further asserts that by refusing to investigate and bring Kenaya to trial on these specific charges the government had “effectively conceded that all of the evidence needed to establish Kenaya’s lies at trial was in the files of government agencies well before the prosecution called him to testify.”This Court must order the government to respond to these allegations, and in particular to Petitioner’s allegation that before Kenaya testified, the government was in possession of, and failed to produce to the defense, the information needed to expose the falsehoods Kenaya promulgated from the witness stand.
    In essence, the Court should asked the government to answer the now famous questions: “What did the government attorneys know [about Kenaya’s lies], and when did they know it.” The government’s response should answer those crucial questions…

    .Lockett submits that the Court has two alternatives. The first is to reverse Lockett’s convictions in Case ID: 07P00808OM based on the undisputable conclusion that his conviction is obtained by the jury’s reliance on perjured testimony and false documents; that result can be reached without addressing the issue of whether the government knew Kenaya intended to commit perjury and obstruction of justice before the prosecutors put him on the stand. The second is to require the government to directly and unambiguously answer the question: When did the State first learn of the fact that the government’s conduct and own records demonstrates that Kenaya would necessarily perjured himself upon cross-examination:

    Okay. And did he use food stamps or his bridge card?
    No, he didn’t, ma’am, neither.

    Not ever?
    Neither.

    Do you take bridge cards there?
    No, we don’t.
    You don’t have one of those machines, or——
    No, we don’t.

    …including other fraudulent testimony on the witness stand?
    Reversal of this tainted conviction is imperative if the integrity of the state and federal judicial system is to be maintained.
     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s