Save Harvey Windsor: September 2014

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

DID WINDSOR GET A FAIR TRIAL?

Brady disclosure consists of exculpatory or impeaching information and evidence that is material to the guilt or innocence or to the punishment of a defendant. The term comes from the U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland, in which the Supreme Court ruled that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to a defendant who has requested it violates due process.
Following Brady, the prosecutor must disclose evidence or information that would prove the innocence of the defendant or would enable the defense to more effectively impeach the credibility of government witnesses. Evidence that would serve to reduce the defendant's sentence must also be disclosed by the prosecution. The prosecutor must disclose an agreement not to prosecute a witness in exchange for the witness's testimony. The prosecutor must disclose leniency (or preferential treatment) agreements made with witnesses in exchange for testimony. The prosecutor must disclose exculpatory evidence known only to the police. That is, the prosecutor has a duty to reach out to the police and establish regular procedures by which the police must inform him of anything that tends to prove the innocence of the defendant. However, the prosecutor is not obligated to personally review police files in search of exculpatory information when the defendant asks for it. The prosecutor must disclose arrest photographs of the defendant when those photos do not match the victim's description. Some state systems have expansively defined Brady material to include many other items, including for example any documents which might reflect negatively on a witness's credibility. Police officers who have been dishonest are sometimes referred to as "Brady cops." Because of the Brady ruling, prosecutors are required to notify defendants and their attorneys whenever a law enforcement official involved in their case has a sustained record for knowingly lying in an official capacity. In order to ensure compliance with Brady, the United States Supreme Court repeatedly urged the "careful prosecutor" to favor disclosure over concealment. Conformity with Brady is a continuing obligation of prosecutors.
Remember now their was no evidence at either crime scene that even hinted Windsor was the suspect. The one and only thing tclaimed hat wrongly convicted Windsor was a woman Sammy Sue Osborn
that at first statement to police did not identify Windsor, after the reward was offered she then made an in court ID. She lived five miles from the Howard scene and said a man named Harvey was at her
place that day? Excuse me if Windsor was at her place why could she not identify him?

Also note the car that witnesses described at the scenes? was a small green car, likely a Toyota, Datsun. Throughout this trial the car that witnesses described was with held from the trial.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? READ HERE

FACE TO FACE WITH SUSPECT AND DID NOT IDENTIFY WINDSOR READ HERE

LOOKING FOR WRONG MAN AND WRONG CAR READ HERE

INCONSTINTCIES IN WITNESS STATEMENTS TWO READ HERE

INCONSTENCIES IN WITNESS STATEMENTS ONE READ HERE

WITNESS STATEMENTS THREE READ HERE

WITNESS TWO READ STATEMENTS READ HERE

WITNESS STATEMENTS ONE READ HERE

SABOTAGE FROM THE WINDSOR DEFENSE TEAM? READ HERE

Owner operator's of Tommy's Shell Station Here

THE WRONGFUL CONVICTION OF HARVEY WINDSOR

The state's case against Mr. Windsor was almost entirely circumstantial. The only physical evidence that purportedly directly linked Mr. Windsor to the killing of Mr. Howard were fingerprints found on a cigarette butt recovered from the Mustang automobile supposedly used by Mr. Windsor and his co-defendant, Colon Lavon Guthrie, in the commission of the crime. The fingerprints were identified as those of Mr. Windsor by the state's expert witness (R 934-935). Having thus purportedly placed Mr. Windsor in the Mustang, the state also introduced two casings; one found at Mr. Howard's store and the other in the Mustang.

Given that these two items of physical evidence represented a crucial part of the state's otherwise overwhelmingly circumstantial case, trial counsel was constitutionally required to make an effort to challenge the state's interpretation of this evidence. Indeed, counsel recognized their responsibility to do so shortly before trial, by requesting funds to retain a fingerprint expert, which request was granted by the trial court. Nevertheless, halfway through the trial, counsel still had not retained an expert, and, in fact, never did so (R 881), leaving the state's interpretation of this evidence unchallenged. The importance of having an expert is highlighted by a review of the testimony and cross-examination of the state's fingerprint expert, Carol Curlee. Ms. Curlee made only one fingerprint identification of Mr. Windsor, that on the cigarette butt. On cross-examination Ms. Curlee admitted that this was only a partial print, and that she could not recall how many ‘points' of similarity there were between that print and Mr. Windsor's file prints (R 936-937). A defense expert could, in all likelihood, have explained to the jury the weaknesses in Ms. Curlee's identification, given these admissions on her part.

The state also introduced fingerprint evidence linking Mr. Guthrie to the killing of Mr. Howard (R 918-920, 924-926). This evidence was part of the state's strategy of trying Mr. Guthrie, against whom there was more physical evidence instead of Mr. Windsor and then using circumstantial evidence to purportedly show that Mr. Windsor was with Guthrie on the day of the crime. Again, as defense counsel understood, expert assistance should have been obtained to challenge this fingerprint evidence as well...(.WE have been asking for the court to release this print for testing to a print expert here in the U.K....as for the shell casings they did take photos off them and prints but for some unknown reason kept that information..those shells were not from the murder weapon which i have proof of....as for the Mustang that wasn't even at the Howard place and i have proof of that....all they wanted to do was tie the two crimes together and put Harvey Windsor with Guthrie...No one identified Harvey Windsor at the Howard place..in fact people said it was not him.