by Maafa M. Muhammad
Police, prosecutors and politicians have long used the media to deceive people with the myth that guilt defendants neat criminal charges because of technicalities. The truth is that defendants can only win cases on technicalities because the law itself is technical. The law wasn't designed to prove innocence. America's legal system was created to provide its government with an acceptable method to deny citizens their lives, liberty and property called Due Process.
FAIR TRIAL: A criminal trial in which the defendant's constitutional and legal rights are respected (Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Edition)
If at any time before arrest and through conviction, a defendants rights were violated—his entire criminal trial is deemed unfair. Because in the language of the law, fair technically means legal. Illegal convictions cannot be upheld by the law. Even when it is obvious a defendant committed the crime in question. An example of this truth is highlighted in a case where the defendant's DNA was retrieved from his victim. However, the trial failed to take place within the time limits established by Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure 600. On appeal the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the unfair (illegal) conviction; vacated the sentence; and discharged him. SEE: Commonwealth v José Luis Rodriguez 2021 Pa. Super. Unpublished LEXIS 3182 No. 13 MDA 2021
Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution guarantees thee right to a speedy trial for all defendants. Which every court in Pennsylvania is duty-bound to follow, no matter what one may think about any particular defendant. Remember, criminal trials are about whether due process rights are protected—not actual innocence.
If an innocent defendant has a fair (legal) trial but the jury finds him guilty—that conviction will stand. As was the case of Terrance Lewis v Harry Wilson in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 423 Fed. Appendix 153; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7309 No. 10-2978 (2011):
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: "Prisoner's request for a hearing under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254(e)(2) had to be denied as the magistrate judge's finding that [Terrance Lewis] was actually innocent did not, by itself overcome § 2255(e)(2).
OVERVIEW: "The Court found that the magistrate judge's finding that the prisoner was actually innocent did not, by itself, overcome § 2254(e)(2) because § 2254 (e)(2) eliminated the freestanding 'actual innocence' exception for failures to develop the factual basis for a claim in a state collateral proceeding.
OUTCOME: "The judgement was affirmed."
Translation: A FEDERAL COURT UPHELD LEWIS' LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE SENTENCE BECAUSE, TECHNICALLY—HE IMPROPERLY (LEGALLY) APPEALED THAT CLAIM OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE!
Lewis remained in prison until 2019 (nine years after he first proved his innocence in federal court). Lewis dropped his actual innocence claim and invoked his Juvenile Lifer status to secure relief. Once he was before the lower court (original jurisdiction) his evidence of innocence was technically allowed to be accepted. But if that crime had occurred when Lewis was eighteen years old—he would have died in prison. And technically, that would have been legal.
Unlike defendants, prosecutors win cases in three ways:
from technicalities; as was the case with Terrance Lewis
from violating the constitutional and legal rights of defendants and;
from judges (or jurors) violating constitutional rights of defendants.
Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution guarantees all defendants in criminal trials the right of disclosure. When prosecutors fail to immediately provide defendants with material evidence such illegal suppression is known as a Brady violation, named after the historic U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963).
Pretrial Discovery and Inspection:
Rule 573 (B)(1) = Mandatory. In all cases, on request by the defendant, and subject to any protective order which the Commonwealth might obtain under this rule, the Commonwealth shall disclose to the defendant's attorney all of the following requested items or information, provided they are material to the instant case. The Commonwealth shall, when applicable, permit the defendant's attorney to inspect and copy or photograph such items.
John L. Brady, the man after whom Brady v Maryland is named, had a claim that focused solely on his punishment (sentencing). In Pennsylvania discovery laws apply to both sentencing hearings, where sanctions are determined, and criminal trials for issues regarding convictions. As the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit explained, "the prosecution's duty to disclose under Brady is absolute it does not depend on defense counsel's actions and the defense is entitled to presume that prosecutors have discharged their official duties." SEE: William Bracey v Superintendent, SCI Rock view, 986 F.3d 274 (2021)
Prosecutors get away with violating defendants' rights because most people are unaware of those official duties. In order to keep Pennsylvania prosecutors in check, defendants who secure relief become victims of civil rights violations, technically. Therefore, they are legally permitted to both sue for damages (money) and seek disciplinary action against their prosecutors.
Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor:
Rule 3.8(d) = The prosecutor in a criminal case shall, make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal.
When prosecutors violate Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct they are subjected to disciplinary action from total judges, the Disciplinary Board of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and Article II of the Pennsylvania Constitution. But technically, the victims of their misconduct need to launch formal complaints in order to start that process. If not the prosecutors will continue to get away with unfair (illegal) practices.
Impartiality and Fairness
Rule 2.2= A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.
External Influences on Judicial Conduct
Rule 2.4(A)= A judge shall not be swayed by public claim or or fear of criticism.
Articles I and II of the Pennsylvania Constitution mandate that judges tie their conduct and rules to laws. They cannot rely on personal beliefs or emotions to make rulings. Even in their personal lives, they are prohibited from engaging in conduct that reveals bias and prejudices. The law is technical and allies to every defendants equally. But if defendants fail to file formal complaints they make those injustices legal technically.
"If we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom...It is a very serious consideration...that millions yet born may be the miserable sharers of the event." —Samuel Adams (1772)