My Son Is Innocent
            Help Remove the Blindfolds of InJustice
Violation of Rights

MELVIN RAY'S CONVICTION WAS SECURED BY FRAUD THROUGH THE

USE OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION DURING THE JURY SELECTION

PROCESS,WHICH SHOULD EXCUSE ANY PERCEIVED PROCEDURAL

DEFAULT, Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 US --, 162 L.Ed.2d 480, 125 S Ct -- (2005);

Brown v. Head, 349 F. 3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2002)


                        
PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AND FOURTEENT AMENDMENT RIGHTTO DUE PROCESS OF LAW, EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, AND HIS RIGHTTO A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY BY THE STATE'S USE OF ITS PEREMPTORY STRIKE AGAINST AFRICAN-AMERICAN JUROR RANDALL ASHFORD IN A RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY MANNER


 

PETITONER WAS FURTHER DENIED DUE PROCESS , A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WHENRESPONDENTS USE A PEREMPTORY STRIKE IN A RACIALLY (AND GENDER) DISCRIMINATORY MANNER TO EXCLUDE FEMALE AFRICAN-AMERICAN JUROR MS. VIVIAN JENNINGS JENNINGS


RAY WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW, IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH

AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WHEN TRIAL COUNSEL DENIED RAY

OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TESTIFY IN HIS OWN BEHALF. See, 

Godinex v. Moran, (1993) 509 U.S. 389; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 US 303,

25 L ed 664, 483 U.S. 44 (1987)

 


RAY WAS DENIED HIS 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW

WHEN THE STATE FAILED TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED

BY THE BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U.S. 83 CONCERNING WITNESS JOAN MOLOTSI




RAY'S BRADY CLAIMS WERE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED ON PROCEDURAL

GROUNDS, CONTRARY TO SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT, WITHOUT

ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS AND THE QUESTION OF MAETRIALITY OF THE EVIDENCE OR THE PROSECUTOR'S MISCONDUCT



THE STATE WITHHELD A BALLISTICS REPORT SHOWING THAT

THE DECEASED WAS SHOT WITH A .380-auto CALIBER WEAPON,

CONTRARY TO THE TESTMONY OF THEIR WITNESS AT TRIAL, FRED

BATTS, WHO TESTIFIED THAT HE SAW THE PETITIONER SHOT
THE

DECEASED WITH A 9MM



THE STATE FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE FULL TERMS OF THE DEALS IT

REACHED WITH IT WITNESSES, INCLUDING ITS DEAL TO NOLLE PROS

THE CASE AGAINST RAY'S CODEFENDANT IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS

TESTIMONY AGAINST RAY




THE STATE IS WITHHOLDING EXCULPATORY GRAND JURY MINUTES

OR TRANSCRIPTS, WHERE THE SAME WITNESSES ARE LISTED AS

HAVING TESTIFIED BEFORE TWO DIFFERENT GRAND JURIES THAT

PRODUCED TWO DIFFERENT INDICTMENTS, WHICH CHARGED TWO

DIFFERENT CAUSES OF DEATH


 

THE STATE IS WITHHOLDING THE IDENTITY OF AN ALLEGED CONFIDENTIAL

SOURCE WHO SUPPOSEDLY PROVIDED INFORMATION ABOUT THE DECEASED

BEING SHOT, WHICH CAUSED A SECOND AUTOPSY TO BE PERFORMED AND

RESULTED IN THE CONCLUSION THAT GUNSHOT WAS THE CAUSE OF DEATH




THE STATE FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS

OF THE CO-DEFENDANT, FRED BATTS, WHERE THESE RECORDS

BEAR ON BOTH HIS CREDIBILTIY AND COMPETENCE



TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR HIS FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE,

UNCOVER, UTILIZE THE BALLISTICS REPORT WHICH SHOWED THAT

THE WEAPON USED TO KILL THE DECEASED WAS A .380-AUTO, AND

NOT A 9 mm AS TESTIFIED TO AT TRIAL




TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

WHEN HE FAILED TO CONDUCT ANY PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATION AND

 SECURE THE PRESENCE OF DR. STEPHEN M. PUSTILNIK FOR TRIAL, WHO

IS THE STATE FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST THAT PERFORMED THE FIRST

AUTOPSY IN THIS CASE, AND WHO CONCLUDED THAT THE THE



TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERD INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE FOR HIS FAILURE TO

INVESTIGATE RESPONDENTS EXERCISE OF A PEREMPTORY STRIKE TO REMOVE JUROR RANDALL ASHFORD FROM THE JURY VENIRE, WHERE COUNSEL RELIED SOLELEY ON A PRETEXTUAL REASON GIVEN BY THE PROSECUTOR THAT WAS UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE





TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN

HE FAILED TO OBJECT TO THE EXCLUSION OF FEMALE AFRICAN AMERICAN

PROSPECTIVE JUROR MS. VIVIAN JENNINGS, WHO WAS STRUCK BY THE

PROSECUTOR BASED SOLELY ON HER RACE, IN VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT

 



TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR HIS FAILURE TO O

TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

WHEN HE FAILED TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR MAKING A DIRECT

COMMENT OF RAY'S SILENCE



BJ

TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR HIS FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE

DISCOVER, AND PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT REFUTES THE TRIAL

TESTIMONY OF STATE WITNESS JOAN MOLOTSI, WHERE THIS EVIDENCE'

IS CRITICAL AND SHOWS THAT THIS WITNESS GAVE FALSE AND MISLEADING

TESTIMONY


TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN

HE FAILED TO OBJECT TO EXTREMELY PREJUDICAL AND DEROGATORY REMARKS MADE BY THE PROSECUTOR DURING THEIR CLOSING ARGUMENTS THAT DENIED RAY OF A FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW



TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR HIS FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE

STATE'S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE A STATEMENT ALLEGEDLY MADE BY RAY

TO STATE WITNESS GENE WALKER



FACTS

TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE FOR HIS FAILURE TO

OBJECT TO AN ERRONEOUS JURY INSTRUCTION THAT GAVE THE JURY PERMISSION TO CONSIDER  THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES EVEN IF THEY FOUND IT TO BE WILLFUL AND INTENTIONAL FALSE TESTIMONY AS TO MATERIAL



ECT TO TESTIMONY THAT HE KNEW TO BE FALSE, WHEN RAY'S CODEFENDANT DENIED HAVING A DEAL WITH THE STATE IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS TESTIMONY, AND THE STATE ALSO DENIED RAY DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL FOR FAILING TO CORRECT THIS TESTIMONY IT KNEW TO BE FALSE

 




TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WHEN HE FAILED TO

DISCOVER AND DISCLOSE TO THE JURY THE FULL TERMS OF THE DEAL THE

STATE HAD WITH CO-DEFENDANT FRED BATTS



TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR ALLOWING PETITIONER TO PLEAD

TO AN INDICTMENT THAT WAS PASSED WITH NO WITNESS OR LEGAL EVIDENCE BEING PRESENTED BEFORE IT

 



TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WHEN HE FAILED TO

OBJECT TO THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTOR HAD PROVIDED HIM WITH FALSE INFORMATION AS TO WHERE THE INFORMATION HAD COME FROM THAT LEAD TO A SECOND AUTOPSY BEING PERFOMRED, WHEN THE FALSITY WAS UNCOVERED DURING TRIAL



TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN

HE FAILED TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR IMPROPERLY VOUCHING FOR

THE TESTIMONY AND CREDIBILITY OF THE CODEFENDANT

 



TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WHEN HE MISINFORMED THE JURY ABOUT WHAT THE EVIDENCE WOULD BE AT TRIAL, DUE TO THE FACT THAT COUNSEL HAD NOT CONDUCTED ANY PRI TRIAL INVESTIGATION TO KNOW WHAT THE EVIDENCE WOULD BE AT TRIAL


TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR HIS FAILURE TO OBJECT TO PREJUDICIAL AND ERRONEOUS SCIENTIFIC, DNA TESTIMONY THAT WAS GIVEN BY A POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO GIVE TESTIMONY ABOUT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

Web Hosting Companies