could not identify Windsor until after he had read an article in the news paper
about Windsor's arrest.
The inconsistencies in the witness statements to police were significant as in
hair color, height, and complexion, still yet others could not even identify Windsor so with so many conflicting inconsistencies
how did they pursue a conviction of Windsor?
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.
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, who made only one fingerprint identification of Mr. Windsor, that on the cigarette butt. On cross-examination she 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).
Perjury is considered a serious offence as it usurps the order created by the Courts. It results in miscarriages of justice, secondary detriment to the person already victim to the first offense, and general detriment to the trust of peace exchanged for payment of taxes. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years,
(Australia minimum term of 14 years and maximum equal to the term of the conviction
The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury, even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official.
Subornation of perjury, attempting to induce another person to perjure themselves, is itself a crime.
In American law and in Scots law the subornation of perjury is the crime of persuading a person to commit perjury — the swearing of a false oath to tell the truth in a legal proceeding, be it spoken or written. The term subornation of perjury further describes the circumstance wherein an attorney at law causes a client to lie under oath, or allows another party to lie under oath.
In legal practice, the condition of suborning perjury applies to a lawyer who presents either testimony or an affidavit, or both, either to a judge or to a jury, which the attorney knows to be materially false, and not factual. In civil law and in criminal law, the attorney’s knowledge that the testimony is materially false must rise above mere suspicion to what an attorney would reasonably have believed in the circumstances of the matter discussed in the testimony. Hence, the attorney cannot be wilfully blind to the fact that his or her witness is giving false, perjurious testimony.
Moreover, an attorney who actively encourages a witness to give false testimony is suborning perjury, which is a crime punished either with formal disciplinary action, disbarment, or jail, or a combination thereof. Likewise, a false statement by an attorney in court also is a crime similar to subornation of perjury, and is punished accordingly. Hence, in the professional conduct of an attorney at law, there is a fine delineation between assisting a witness to recall occurred events and encouraging him or her to give materially false testimony. The practice of ″horse shedding the witness″ (rehearsing testimony) is an example of such perjurious criminal conduct by an attorney, which is depicted in the true-crime novel Anatomy of a Murder (1958), by Robert Traver, and in the eponymous film (Otto Preminger, 1959), about a rape-and-murder case wherein are explored the ethical and legal problems inherent to the subornation of perjury.
CC
Sammy sue Osborn....on 3/2/88 she was allowed to see a photo line up and picked photo #4 (Windsor ) and yet in 1992 she had said she had been visited by the A.B.I after the 25th of February and had not been shown any photos and stated that the Sheriff had shown her a book of photographs (this being in 1992) she couldn't remember who showed them to her.The court had ordered for them to be produced, no one seemed to know who had them so they took her word for it...
Now remember this was around Feb 27th on wards that Harvey Windsor name and photo had been in the media with a reward being offered
The state relied on the in court indentification in 1992 from Sammy sue Osborn of Harvey Windsor being at her house in February 25th 1988.she lived 5 miles from where Rayford Howard was murdered, and yet there was a witness who saw the two that day and could not identify Harvey Windsor one of them.
He also said it was a Green car, not a black mustang .
In fact there was no evidence to say Windsor had been there that day. Without the
statement of Sammy Sue Osborn.
Below is the Times Daily News Paper dated March 4th 1988 offering $25,000 reward and the photo of Harvey Windsor
the same one used in the line up showing all of his DETAILS. Harvey Windsors information is shown In court how ever She
claims she was not shown a photo
February 28th 1988 they received a photograph of Harvey Windsor
Bobbie Osborn (1992)...pay attention to the time shes says Guthrie and the one he called buddy were at her house, discription of the car being black with Gold stripe, Tinted windows.(all this had been in the media)....she admitted to reading the news papers,she claims the one with Guthrie had a beard , mustache, and shoulder length hair,she claims she couldn't if she had gave this description to the investigator,shes not even sure who the defendant is in court,Notice when Mr Holladay said "essentially you are saying you could not positively identify any body in this court room as being at your house on February 25th 1988" she doesn't answer that question...
No comments:
Post a Comment