Dear Editor:
Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong's current dilemma is a reminder to all of us that public pressure to reach a speedy conviction can push a prosecutor to jump to a conclusion of guilt without checking first on the reliability of his witnesses.
At Duke University, my younger son's Alma Mater, it has led to complete disruption in the lives of the three lacrosse team members who were accused of rape despite their insistence on their innocence. Charges against the team members still exist despite objections from many legal professionals who believe the many differing accounts given by the victim — and the DNA evidence which excluded the members of the Duke lacrosse team and showed DNA from outsiders on the victim's clothing — has undermined the entire case.
How hard it is for a prosecutor to retreat from the many claims of guilt he hastily leveled at these tormented students and bring about a just closure for them. Demands are now being made for Nifong's resignation.
This is all too similar to what happened to Efren Paredes, Jr., a Lakeshore High School 15-year-old Latino honor student who was charged for the March 8, 1989 robbery of Vineland Foods and murder of Rick Tetzlaff. Efren was arrested, tried and convicted within a three month period amid intense television, print, and radio media coverage.
The crime understandably alarmed and enraged those in the community, and when the prosecutor of Efren's case was offered what seemed a quick and easy solution to the crime, he jumped at it after offering immunity to a drug dealer and police informant, Steve Miller, who was never prosecuted for his admitted role in the crime's conspiracy.
According to FBI agent Robert Allen Jones, who investigated Miller in a 2000 federal drug case, Miller admitted to dealing drugs with a Chicago gang leader beginning in 1987, two years previous to the Vineland robbery and Tetzlaff murder. Miller and his father were subsequently convicted for the drug-related charges and sentenced to long prison terms.
Readers are encouraged to read an alarming research paper on wrongful convictions titled, "Convicting the Innocent: Aberration or Systemic Problem," by Rodney Uphoff, Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=912310. Another tragic case of injustice can be read in John Grisham's latest best-selling book, "The Innocent Man."
The Duke University athletes may be completely exonerated, and district attorney Nifong may face charges of professional misconduct and criminal charges for his illegal actions in the case, but Efren remains in prison sentenced to life without parole.
No one can afford to allow a system that wrongly condemns people to life imprisonment or the death penalty to function recklessly and with willful disregard for the truth. Our community is responsible for Efren's nearly 18 years of wrongful incarceration. It is long overdue for the silence to be broken and undo the injustice he has suffered.
To learn more about this injustice you are encouraged to visit www.4Efren.com and http://4Efren.blogspot.com. To sign an on-line petition calling for justice in Efren's case please visit www.petitionspot.com/petitions/4Efren.
Joyce Gouwens
Bridgman
This above letter to the editor appeared in The Herald-Palladium on Thursday, January 11, 2006. Below is a brief history of what lead to the wrongful accusations lodged against the Duke University lacrosse players —The Injustice Must End (TIME)
Defense attorneys called Friday, December 29, 2006 for all charges to be dismissed against three Duke University lacrosse players after prosecutors dropped rape charges against them.
Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong said he didn't have enough evidence to proceed with a rape case but said he plans to take the players to trial on kidnapping and sexual offense charges.
Reade Seligmann, 20, Collin Finnerty, 20, and David Evans, 23, were indicted last spring after a North Carolina Central University student told police she was beaten and raped by three lacrosse players while performing as a stripper at a March 13 team party.
The players have denied any wrongdoing in the case, which has split the Durham community in recent months.
The dismissal follows a Thursday, December 28, 2006 meeting between Nifong's investigator and the woman. She told the investigator that she couldn't testify "with certainty" that she was raped, according to the dismissal motions.
"Since there is no scientific or other evidence independent of the victim's testimony that would corroborate specifically (a rape charge), the state is unable to meet its burden of proof with respect to this offense," the motions said.
In recent weeks defense attorneys disclosed that a report issued in the case initially didn't disclose that the woman had DNA on her from several men, none of which was a member of the lacrosse team.
Nifong has never talked to the woman about the details of the incident, although investigators from his office and the Durham Police Department have interviewed her repeatedly over the past nine months.
In addition to questioning the woman's varying statements, defense attorneys have repeatedly hammered other elements of the prosecution's case, including the DNA report and the photo line-up the woman used to identify the three players.
Free Efren Orange Banner
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Wrongful Convictions 101
It is often difficult to find the words to explain to people the anatomy of a wrongful conviction. The reason for this is that society is generally conditioned to believe the system works, which is reinforced through television, media and the educational system. Thus, it is difficult to change their tunnel vision.
Part of the work we are doing to help overturn Efren's wrongful conviction entails educating the public about injustice in the criminal justice system at large. To help accomplish this we will begin regularly posting information about research studies which can be used to educate committee members and others about the myriad factors that result in wrongful convictions.
Knowledge is power. The more knowledgeable we become about the issues we advance, the greater impact we can have when conveying our mission.
Please take the opportunity to review these documents and links when time permits. Let us all be reminded that justice delayed is justice denied.
The following research studies are available to be reviewed or downloaded at no charge from The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection. You can perform a search for author names or titles of the research papers to locate them. Their web site is http://ssrn.com/
"Convicting the Innocent: Aberration or Systemic Problem" by Rodney Uphoff, Elwood L. Thomas Missouri Endowed Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law
"Up the River Without a Procedure: Innocent Prisoners and Newly Discovered Non-DNA Evidence in State Courts" by Daniel S. Medwed, Associate Professor of Law, University of Utah—S.J. Quinney College of Law
"Anatomy of a Wrongful Conviction: Theoretical Implications and Practical Solutions" by Daniel S. Medwed, Associate Professor of Law, University of Utah—S.J. Quinney College of Law
"Convictions of Innocent Persons in Massachusetts: An Overview" by Stanley Z. Fisher, Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
"California Dreaming? The Golden State's Restless Approach to Newly Discovered Evidence of Innocence" by Daniel S. Medwed, Associate Professor of Law, University of Utah—S.J. Quinney College of Law
"The Multiple Dimensions of Tunnel Vision in Criminal Cases" by Keith A. Findley, Clinical Professor, University of Wisconsin Law School; Co-Director, Wisconsin Innocence Project; and Michael S. Scott, Clinical Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin Law School; Director, Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
"The Relationship Between Prosecutorial Misconduct and Wrongful Convictions: Shaping Remedies for a Broken System" by Peter A. Joy, Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal Justice Clinic, Washington University School of Law in St. Louis
"Beyond Unreliable: How Snitches Contribute to Wrongful Convictions" by Alexandra Natapoff, Associate Professor, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
"Convicting the Innocent: An Empirically Justified Wrongful Conviction Rate" by D. Michael Risinger, Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law
"How the Pretrial Process Contributes to Wrongful Convictions" by Andrew D. Leipold, Professor, University of Illinois College of Law
"Moving Down the Wedge of Injustice: A Proposal for a Third Generation of Wrongful Convictions Scholarship and Advocacy" by Andrew M. Siegel, Assistant Professor, University of South Carolina School of Law
Part of the work we are doing to help overturn Efren's wrongful conviction entails educating the public about injustice in the criminal justice system at large. To help accomplish this we will begin regularly posting information about research studies which can be used to educate committee members and others about the myriad factors that result in wrongful convictions.
Knowledge is power. The more knowledgeable we become about the issues we advance, the greater impact we can have when conveying our mission.
Please take the opportunity to review these documents and links when time permits. Let us all be reminded that justice delayed is justice denied.
The following research studies are available to be reviewed or downloaded at no charge from The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection. You can perform a search for author names or titles of the research papers to locate them. Their web site is http://ssrn.com/
"Convicting the Innocent: Aberration or Systemic Problem" by Rodney Uphoff, Elwood L. Thomas Missouri Endowed Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law
"Up the River Without a Procedure: Innocent Prisoners and Newly Discovered Non-DNA Evidence in State Courts" by Daniel S. Medwed, Associate Professor of Law, University of Utah—S.J. Quinney College of Law
"Anatomy of a Wrongful Conviction: Theoretical Implications and Practical Solutions" by Daniel S. Medwed, Associate Professor of Law, University of Utah—S.J. Quinney College of Law
"Convictions of Innocent Persons in Massachusetts: An Overview" by Stanley Z. Fisher, Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
"California Dreaming? The Golden State's Restless Approach to Newly Discovered Evidence of Innocence" by Daniel S. Medwed, Associate Professor of Law, University of Utah—S.J. Quinney College of Law
"The Multiple Dimensions of Tunnel Vision in Criminal Cases" by Keith A. Findley, Clinical Professor, University of Wisconsin Law School; Co-Director, Wisconsin Innocence Project; and Michael S. Scott, Clinical Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin Law School; Director, Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
"The Relationship Between Prosecutorial Misconduct and Wrongful Convictions: Shaping Remedies for a Broken System" by Peter A. Joy, Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal Justice Clinic, Washington University School of Law in St. Louis
"Beyond Unreliable: How Snitches Contribute to Wrongful Convictions" by Alexandra Natapoff, Associate Professor, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
"Convicting the Innocent: An Empirically Justified Wrongful Conviction Rate" by D. Michael Risinger, Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law
"How the Pretrial Process Contributes to Wrongful Convictions" by Andrew D. Leipold, Professor, University of Illinois College of Law
"Moving Down the Wedge of Injustice: A Proposal for a Third Generation of Wrongful Convictions Scholarship and Advocacy" by Andrew M. Siegel, Assistant Professor, University of South Carolina School of Law
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Problems With Snitch Testimony
Bait and Snitch: The High Cost of Snitching for Law Enforcement
by Alexandra Natapoff
[Editor's Note: By "snitches" Ms. Natapoff means "criminals who provide information in exchange for lenience for their own crimes or other benefits." According to Ms. Natapoff, the term "informant" does not include law-abiding citizens who provide information to the police with no benefit to themselves.]
The T-shirts scream "Stop Snitchin'!" From Baltimore to Boston to New York; in Pittsburgh, Denver, and Milwaukee, kids are sporting the ominous fashion statement, prompting local fear, outrage, and fierce arguments over crime. Several trials have been disrupted by the t-shirts; some witnesses refuse to testify. Boston's Mayor Thomas M. Menino has declared a ban: "We're going into every retail store that sells them," he declared to the Boston Globe, "and we're going to take them off the shelves." With cameo appearances in the growing controversy by NBA star Carmelo Anthony of the Denver Nuggets and the rapper Li'l Kim, snitching is making urban culture headlines.
The "Stop Snitchin'" T-shirt drama looks, at first blush, like a dustup over a simple counterculture message launched by some urban criminal entrepreneurs: that friends don't snitch on friends. But it is, in fact, a symptom of a more insidious reality that has largely escaped public notice: For the last 20 years, state and federal governments have been creating criminal snitches and setting them loose in poor, high-crime communities. The backlash against snitches embodies a growing national recognition that snitching is dangerous public policy — producing bad information, endangering innocent people, letting dangerous criminals off the hook, compromising the integrity of police work, and inciting violence and distrust in socially vulnerable neighborhoods.
The heart of the snitching problem lies in the secret deals that police and prosecutors make with criminals. In investigating drug offenses, police and prosecutors rely heavily — and sometimes exclusively — on criminals willing to trade information about other criminals in exchange for leniency. Many snitches avoid arrest altogether, thus continuing to use and deal drugs and commit other crimes in their neighborhoods, while providing information to the police. As drug dockets swell and police and prosecutors become increasingly dependent on snitches, high-crime communities are filling up with these active criminals who will turn in friends, family, and neighbors in order to"work off" their own crimes.
Critics of the T-shirts tend to dismiss the "stop snitching" sentiment as pro-criminal and antisocial; a subcultural expression of misplaced loyalty. But the T-shirts should be heeded as evidence of a failed public policy. Snitching is an entrenched law-enforcement practice that has become pervasive due to its crucial role in the war on drugs. This practice is favored not only by police and prosecutors, but by legislatures: Mandatory minimum sentences and restrictions on judges make snitching one of the only means for defendants to negotiate in the face of rigid and drastic sentences. But the policy has turned out to be a double-edged sword. Nearly every drug offense involves a snitch, and snitching is increasingly displacing more traditional police work, such as undercover operations and independent investigation.
According to some agents and prosecutors, snitching is also slowly crippling law enforcement: "[I]nformers are running today's drug investigations, not the agents," says veteran DEA agent, Celerino Castillo. "Agents have become so dependent on informers that the agents are at their mercy." According to a study conducted by professor Ellen Yaroshefsky of Cardozo Law School, some prosecutors actually "fall in love with their rats." A prosecutor in the study describes the phenomenon: "You are not supposed to, of course. But you spend time with this guy, you get to know him and his family. You like him. [T]he reality is that the cooperator's information often becomes your mindset." In this view, criminal snitching is a sort of Frankenstein's monster that has turned on and begun to consume its law enforcement creator.
The government's traditional justification for creating criminal snitches — "we-need-to-flip-little-fishes-to-get-to-the-Big-Fish" — is at best an ideal and mostly the remnant of one. Today, the government lets all sorts of criminals, both big and little, trade information to escape punishment for nearly every kind of crime, and often the snitches are more dangerous than the targets. As reported by Wall Street Journal reporter Laurie Cohen last year: "The big fish gets off and the little fish gets eaten. . . . [T]he procedure for deciding who gets [rewarded for cooperation] is often haphazard and tilted toward higher-ranking veteran criminals who can tell prosecutors what they want to know."
Snitching thus puts us right through the looking glass: Criminals direct police investigations while avoiding arrest and punishment. Nevertheless, snitching is ever more popular with law enforcement: it is easier to "flip" defendants and turn them into snitches than it is to fight over their cases. For a criminal system that has more cases than it can litigate, and more defendants than it can incarcerate, snitching has become a convenient case-management tool for an institution that has bitten off more than it can chew.
And while the government's snitching policy has gone mostly unchallenged, it is both damaging to the justice system and socially expensive. Snitches are famously unreliable: A 2004 study by the Northwestern University Law School's Center on Wrongful Convictions reveals that 46 percent of wrongful death penalty convictions are due to snitch misinformation — making snitches the leading cause of wrongful conviction in capital cases. Jailhouse snitches routinely concoct information; the system gives them every incentive to do so. Los Angeles snitch Leslie White infamously avoided punishment for his crimes for years by fabricating confessions and attributing them to his cellmates.
Snitches also undermine law-enforcement legitimacy — police who rely on and protect their informants are often perceived as favoring criminals. In a growing number of public fiascos, snitches actually invent crimes and criminals in order to provide the government with the information it demands. In Dallas, for example, in the so-called "fake drug scandal," paid informants set up innocent Mexican immigrants with fake drugs (gypsum), while police falsified drug field tests in order to inflate their drug-bust statistics.
Finally, as the T-shirt controversy illustrates, snitching exacerbates crime, violence, and distrust in some of the nation's most socially vulnerable communities. In the poorest neighborhoods, vast numbers of young people are in contact with the criminal justice system. Nearly every family contains someone who is incarcerated, under supervision, or has a criminal record. In these communities, the law enforcement policy of pressuring everyone to snitch can have the devastating effect of tearing families and social networks apart. Ironically, these are the communities most in need of positive role models, strong social institutions, and good police-community relations. Snitching undermines these important goals by setting criminals loose, creating distrust, and compromising police integrity.
The "Stop Snitchin'" T-shirts have drawn local fire for their perceived threat to law-abiding citizens who call the police. But in the outrage over that perceived threat, the larger message of the shirts has been missed: Government policies that favor criminal snitching harm the communities most in need of law-enforcement protection. [Editor's Note: The purported concern over t-shirts ignores the far more pervasive form of witness intimidation and organized crime practiced by police officers and prison and jail guards alike with their infamous "wall of silence."]
While snitching will never be abolished, the practice could be substantially improved, mostly by lifting the veil of secrecy that shields law enforcement practices from public scrutiny. As things stand, police and prosecutors can cut a deal with a criminal; turn him into a snitch or cut him loose; forgive his crimes or resurrect them later, release him into the community; or decide to pick him up. They do all this at their discretion, without legal rules, in complete secrecy with no judicial or public accountability. As a result, we have no idea whether snitching even reduces crime or actually increases it, and we can only guess at the collateral harms it imposes on high-crime communities.
The government should reveal snitching's real costs, including data on how many snitches are released into high-crime neighborhoods and what sorts of snitch crimes are forgiven. The government should also be required to establish the concrete benefits of a policy that releases some criminals to catch others, by accounting for how much crime actually gets stopped or solved by snitch information. Only then can we rationally evaluate how much government-sponsored snitching makes sense. Until we can know the real value of snitching, the T-shirts remain an important reminder that this particular cure for crime may be as bad as the disease.
Alexandra Natapoff is an Associate Professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, and the author of a University of Cincinnati Law Review article entitled, Snitching: The Institutional and Communal Consequences. This article originally appeared on Slate.com.
We invite your comments about this article which can be posted below by clicking on the words "Post a Comment." —The Injustice Must End (TIME)
by Alexandra Natapoff
[Editor's Note: By "snitches" Ms. Natapoff means "criminals who provide information in exchange for lenience for their own crimes or other benefits." According to Ms. Natapoff, the term "informant" does not include law-abiding citizens who provide information to the police with no benefit to themselves.]
The T-shirts scream "Stop Snitchin'!" From Baltimore to Boston to New York; in Pittsburgh, Denver, and Milwaukee, kids are sporting the ominous fashion statement, prompting local fear, outrage, and fierce arguments over crime. Several trials have been disrupted by the t-shirts; some witnesses refuse to testify. Boston's Mayor Thomas M. Menino has declared a ban: "We're going into every retail store that sells them," he declared to the Boston Globe, "and we're going to take them off the shelves." With cameo appearances in the growing controversy by NBA star Carmelo Anthony of the Denver Nuggets and the rapper Li'l Kim, snitching is making urban culture headlines.
The "Stop Snitchin'" T-shirt drama looks, at first blush, like a dustup over a simple counterculture message launched by some urban criminal entrepreneurs: that friends don't snitch on friends. But it is, in fact, a symptom of a more insidious reality that has largely escaped public notice: For the last 20 years, state and federal governments have been creating criminal snitches and setting them loose in poor, high-crime communities. The backlash against snitches embodies a growing national recognition that snitching is dangerous public policy — producing bad information, endangering innocent people, letting dangerous criminals off the hook, compromising the integrity of police work, and inciting violence and distrust in socially vulnerable neighborhoods.
The heart of the snitching problem lies in the secret deals that police and prosecutors make with criminals. In investigating drug offenses, police and prosecutors rely heavily — and sometimes exclusively — on criminals willing to trade information about other criminals in exchange for leniency. Many snitches avoid arrest altogether, thus continuing to use and deal drugs and commit other crimes in their neighborhoods, while providing information to the police. As drug dockets swell and police and prosecutors become increasingly dependent on snitches, high-crime communities are filling up with these active criminals who will turn in friends, family, and neighbors in order to"work off" their own crimes.
Critics of the T-shirts tend to dismiss the "stop snitching" sentiment as pro-criminal and antisocial; a subcultural expression of misplaced loyalty. But the T-shirts should be heeded as evidence of a failed public policy. Snitching is an entrenched law-enforcement practice that has become pervasive due to its crucial role in the war on drugs. This practice is favored not only by police and prosecutors, but by legislatures: Mandatory minimum sentences and restrictions on judges make snitching one of the only means for defendants to negotiate in the face of rigid and drastic sentences. But the policy has turned out to be a double-edged sword. Nearly every drug offense involves a snitch, and snitching is increasingly displacing more traditional police work, such as undercover operations and independent investigation.
According to some agents and prosecutors, snitching is also slowly crippling law enforcement: "[I]nformers are running today's drug investigations, not the agents," says veteran DEA agent, Celerino Castillo. "Agents have become so dependent on informers that the agents are at their mercy." According to a study conducted by professor Ellen Yaroshefsky of Cardozo Law School, some prosecutors actually "fall in love with their rats." A prosecutor in the study describes the phenomenon: "You are not supposed to, of course. But you spend time with this guy, you get to know him and his family. You like him. [T]he reality is that the cooperator's information often becomes your mindset." In this view, criminal snitching is a sort of Frankenstein's monster that has turned on and begun to consume its law enforcement creator.
The government's traditional justification for creating criminal snitches — "we-need-to-flip-little-fishes-to-get-to-the-Big-Fish" — is at best an ideal and mostly the remnant of one. Today, the government lets all sorts of criminals, both big and little, trade information to escape punishment for nearly every kind of crime, and often the snitches are more dangerous than the targets. As reported by Wall Street Journal reporter Laurie Cohen last year: "The big fish gets off and the little fish gets eaten. . . . [T]he procedure for deciding who gets [rewarded for cooperation] is often haphazard and tilted toward higher-ranking veteran criminals who can tell prosecutors what they want to know."
Snitching thus puts us right through the looking glass: Criminals direct police investigations while avoiding arrest and punishment. Nevertheless, snitching is ever more popular with law enforcement: it is easier to "flip" defendants and turn them into snitches than it is to fight over their cases. For a criminal system that has more cases than it can litigate, and more defendants than it can incarcerate, snitching has become a convenient case-management tool for an institution that has bitten off more than it can chew.
And while the government's snitching policy has gone mostly unchallenged, it is both damaging to the justice system and socially expensive. Snitches are famously unreliable: A 2004 study by the Northwestern University Law School's Center on Wrongful Convictions reveals that 46 percent of wrongful death penalty convictions are due to snitch misinformation — making snitches the leading cause of wrongful conviction in capital cases. Jailhouse snitches routinely concoct information; the system gives them every incentive to do so. Los Angeles snitch Leslie White infamously avoided punishment for his crimes for years by fabricating confessions and attributing them to his cellmates.
Snitches also undermine law-enforcement legitimacy — police who rely on and protect their informants are often perceived as favoring criminals. In a growing number of public fiascos, snitches actually invent crimes and criminals in order to provide the government with the information it demands. In Dallas, for example, in the so-called "fake drug scandal," paid informants set up innocent Mexican immigrants with fake drugs (gypsum), while police falsified drug field tests in order to inflate their drug-bust statistics.
Finally, as the T-shirt controversy illustrates, snitching exacerbates crime, violence, and distrust in some of the nation's most socially vulnerable communities. In the poorest neighborhoods, vast numbers of young people are in contact with the criminal justice system. Nearly every family contains someone who is incarcerated, under supervision, or has a criminal record. In these communities, the law enforcement policy of pressuring everyone to snitch can have the devastating effect of tearing families and social networks apart. Ironically, these are the communities most in need of positive role models, strong social institutions, and good police-community relations. Snitching undermines these important goals by setting criminals loose, creating distrust, and compromising police integrity.
The "Stop Snitchin'" T-shirts have drawn local fire for their perceived threat to law-abiding citizens who call the police. But in the outrage over that perceived threat, the larger message of the shirts has been missed: Government policies that favor criminal snitching harm the communities most in need of law-enforcement protection. [Editor's Note: The purported concern over t-shirts ignores the far more pervasive form of witness intimidation and organized crime practiced by police officers and prison and jail guards alike with their infamous "wall of silence."]
While snitching will never be abolished, the practice could be substantially improved, mostly by lifting the veil of secrecy that shields law enforcement practices from public scrutiny. As things stand, police and prosecutors can cut a deal with a criminal; turn him into a snitch or cut him loose; forgive his crimes or resurrect them later, release him into the community; or decide to pick him up. They do all this at their discretion, without legal rules, in complete secrecy with no judicial or public accountability. As a result, we have no idea whether snitching even reduces crime or actually increases it, and we can only guess at the collateral harms it imposes on high-crime communities.
The government should reveal snitching's real costs, including data on how many snitches are released into high-crime neighborhoods and what sorts of snitch crimes are forgiven. The government should also be required to establish the concrete benefits of a policy that releases some criminals to catch others, by accounting for how much crime actually gets stopped or solved by snitch information. Only then can we rationally evaluate how much government-sponsored snitching makes sense. Until we can know the real value of snitching, the T-shirts remain an important reminder that this particular cure for crime may be as bad as the disease.
Alexandra Natapoff is an Associate Professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, and the author of a University of Cincinnati Law Review article entitled, Snitching: The Institutional and Communal Consequences. This article originally appeared on Slate.com.
We invite your comments about this article which can be posted below by clicking on the words "Post a Comment." —The Injustice Must End (TIME)
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Poetry by Efren Paredes, Jr.
Poetry by Efren Paredes, Jr.
The following poem was written by Efren Paredes, Jr. "Snowflakes" was selected by the International Library of Poetry in 2006 for publication in the book "Immortal Verses". According to the International Library of Poetry, Efren's poem was selected on the basis of his "unique talent and artistic vision."
In April 2006 Efren was also nominated as poet of the year by the International Society of Poets and was formally inducted in July 2006 as an International Poet of Merit and Honored Member of the International Society of Poets for 2006-2007. Due to his incarceration Efren will be unable to attend the 20th Anniversary International Society of Poets Convention and Symposium.
Additional writings constructed by Efren will be posted in the future. You are encouraged to return to our blog so we can share more of Efren's writings with you.
Snowflakes
by Efren Paredes, Jr.
Crystallized water drops
that fall from the sky
Their layers form pillows
which dazzle our eyes.
They summon the children
to go out and play
To enjoy making snowmen
on a cold Winter day.
Captivate the cherubs
with their opulent glow
They sparkle like diamonds
display a marvelous show.
Sunlight glistens radiantly
generating jubilant awe
Bouncing and dashing
between snowflakes that fall.
Their elegant travel
so methodical and slow
Fashion delicate blankets
on the earth down below.
Each snowflake unique
like expressions of love
Their presence is vibrant
the semblance of doves.
Symbols of purity
cleanse the crisp, frigid air
Next time you see them
treat them gently, with care.
Copyright © 2005 by Efren Paredes, Jr.
The following poem was written by Efren Paredes, Jr. "Snowflakes" was selected by the International Library of Poetry in 2006 for publication in the book "Immortal Verses". According to the International Library of Poetry, Efren's poem was selected on the basis of his "unique talent and artistic vision."
In April 2006 Efren was also nominated as poet of the year by the International Society of Poets and was formally inducted in July 2006 as an International Poet of Merit and Honored Member of the International Society of Poets for 2006-2007. Due to his incarceration Efren will be unable to attend the 20th Anniversary International Society of Poets Convention and Symposium.
Additional writings constructed by Efren will be posted in the future. You are encouraged to return to our blog so we can share more of Efren's writings with you.
Snowflakes
by Efren Paredes, Jr.
Crystallized water drops
that fall from the sky
Their layers form pillows
which dazzle our eyes.
They summon the children
to go out and play
To enjoy making snowmen
on a cold Winter day.
Captivate the cherubs
with their opulent glow
They sparkle like diamonds
display a marvelous show.
Sunlight glistens radiantly
generating jubilant awe
Bouncing and dashing
between snowflakes that fall.
Their elegant travel
so methodical and slow
Fashion delicate blankets
on the earth down below.
Each snowflake unique
like expressions of love
Their presence is vibrant
the semblance of doves.
Symbols of purity
cleanse the crisp, frigid air
Next time you see them
treat them gently, with care.
Copyright © 2005 by Efren Paredes, Jr.
Suggested Documents to Read on Efren Paredes, Jr.'s Web Site at www.4Efren.com
Suggested Documents to Read on Efren's Web Site
The following documents have been selected for suggested reading to learn more about Efren's wrongful conviction and how you can assist him. We invite you to read additional information available on the site as well when time permits.
Under the General Information tab of http://www.4efren.com/
• Web Site Intro
• Paul Ciolino - Support Letter - Credentials
• Efren's Biographical Information
• Letters in Support of Efren – Part 1
• Letters in Support of Efren – Part 2
• Letters in Support of Efren – Part 3
• Letters in Support of Efren – Part 4
• Support Letter Request
Under the Efren's Case Information tab of http://www.4efren.com/
• Case History
• Court Appeals Information & Status
• The Road to the Eric Mui Plea Agreement
Under the Denial of Records and Evidence tab of http://www.4efren.com/
• All the files that appear in this section
Under the Media Issues tab of http://www.4efren.com/
• Judge Zoe Burkholz Media Statements - Second Day of Trial
• Judge Zoe Burkholz Media Statements - Third Day of Trial
• Judge Zoe Burkholz Media Statements - Fourth Day of Trial
• Judge Zoe Burkholz Media Statements - Fifth Day of Trial
• Judge Zoe Burkholz Media Statements - Sixth Day of Trial
If you haven't already done so, please visit and sign our electronic petition which supports justice for Efren Paredes, Jr. You can find the petition at the following link:
www.petitionspot.com/petitions/4Efren
The following documents have been selected for suggested reading to learn more about Efren's wrongful conviction and how you can assist him. We invite you to read additional information available on the site as well when time permits.
Under the General Information tab of http://www.4efren.com/
• Web Site Intro
• Paul Ciolino - Support Letter - Credentials
• Efren's Biographical Information
• Letters in Support of Efren – Part 1
• Letters in Support of Efren – Part 2
• Letters in Support of Efren – Part 3
• Letters in Support of Efren – Part 4
• Support Letter Request
Under the Efren's Case Information tab of http://www.4efren.com/
• Case History
• Court Appeals Information & Status
• The Road to the Eric Mui Plea Agreement
Under the Denial of Records and Evidence tab of http://www.4efren.com/
• All the files that appear in this section
Under the Media Issues tab of http://www.4efren.com/
• Judge Zoe Burkholz Media Statements - Second Day of Trial
• Judge Zoe Burkholz Media Statements - Third Day of Trial
• Judge Zoe Burkholz Media Statements - Fourth Day of Trial
• Judge Zoe Burkholz Media Statements - Fifth Day of Trial
• Judge Zoe Burkholz Media Statements - Sixth Day of Trial
If you haven't already done so, please visit and sign our electronic petition which supports justice for Efren Paredes, Jr. You can find the petition at the following link:
www.petitionspot.com/petitions/4Efren
Prosecutor's Gone Wild: America's Injustice System is Criminal
The following is an article we would like to share with our readers which contains very good information related to wrongful convictions. We invite your comments which can be posted at the end of the article. —Efren
Prosecutor's Gone Wild: America's Injustice System is Criminal
By Paul Craig Roberts
Counterpunch
December 12, 2006
The Christmas season is a time to remember the unfortunate. Among the most unfortunate people are those who have been wrongly convicted and imprisoned.
The United States has a large number of wrongfully convicted. There are many reasons for this. One is that the US has the largest percentage of its citizens imprisoned of all countries in the world, including China. One of every 32 US adults is behind bars, on probation or on parole. Given a wrongful conviction rate, the larger the percentage of citizens in jails, the greater the number of wrongfully convicted.
According to the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College in London, the US has 700,000 more of its citizens incarcerated than China, a country with a population four to five times larger than that of the US, and 1,330,000 more people in prison than crime-ridden Russia. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. The American incarceration rate is seven times higher than that of European countries. Either America is the land of criminals, or something is seriously wrong with the criminal justice (sic) system in "the land of the free."
In the US the wrongful conviction rate is extremely high. One reason is that hardly any of the convicted have had a jury trial. No peers have heard the evidence against them and found them guilty. In the US criminal justice (sic) system, more than 95% of all felony cases are settled with a plea bargain.
Before jumping to the conclusion that an innocent person would not admit guilt, be aware of how the process works. Any defendant who stands trial faces more severe penalties if found guilty than if he agrees to a plea bargain. Prosecutors don't like trials because they are time consuming and a lot of work. To discourage trials, prosecutors offer defendants reduced charges and lighter sentences than would result from a jury conviction. In the event a defendant insists upon his innocence, prosecutors pile on charges until the defendant's lawyer and family convince the defendant that a jury is likely to give the prosecutor a conviction on at least one of the many charges and that the penalty will be greater than a negotiated plea.
The criminal justice (sic) system today consists of a process whereby a defendant is coerced into admitting to a crime in order to escape more severe punishment for maintaining his innocence. Many of the crimes for which people are imprisoned never occurred. They are made up crimes created by the process of negotiation to close a case.
This takes most of the work out of the system and, thereby, suits police, prosecutors, and judges to a tee. Police do not have to be careful about evidence, because they know that no more than one case out of twenty will ever be tested in the courtroom.
Prosecutors do not have to make decisions about which cases to prosecute or risk losing cases. By coercing pleas, prosecutors can prosecute every case and boast of extremely high conviction rates. When prosecutors had to decide which cases to prosecute, they had to examine the evidence and to investigate the defendant's side of the story. No more. The evidence seldom comes into play. In place of a determination of innocence or guilt, prosecutors negotiate with lawyers the crimes to which a defendant will enter a plea.
Prosecutors have lost sight of innocence and guilt. What we have today is a conveyor belt that convicts almost everyone who is charged. Every defense attorney knows that today prosecutors can purchase testimony against a defendant by paying a "witness" with money, dropped charges, or reduced time to testify against the defendant. Many prosecutors become highly annoyed at any disruption of the plea bargain conviction process. A defendant that incurs the prosecutor's ire is certain to be framed on far more serious charges than a negotiated plea.
Going to trial is no guarantee that an innocent person will be acquitted. Prosecutors routinely withhold exculpatory evidence and suborn perjury. Generally, jurors trust prosecutors and are unaware of their inventory of dirty tricks. Few jurors can tell the difference between bogus evidence and real evidence. For example, psychologists and criminologists have established beyond all doubt that eye-witnesses are wrong 50% of the time. Yet, jurors usually believe eye-witnesses unless they think the witness has it in for the defendant and is lying.
Prosecutors—and there are still a few—who are meticulous about their cases and fair to defendants show poor results compared to the high convictions attained by prosecutors who run plea bargain mills and frame-up factories. Today's criminal justice (sic) system is results orientated, not justice orientated.
In the past judges could give light sentences to people they believed had been wrongfully convicted. But "law and order conservatives" have taken sentencing discretion away from judges. Today prosecutors hold all the cards.
Many conservatives believe that prisons are full of hardened criminals who liberal judges are determined to release to prey upon society. In truth, the largest percentage of prisoners are drug users who are victims of the conservatives' "war on drugs." Drug offenses account for 49 percent of federal prison population growth between 1995 and 2003. Many of these prisoners are mothers arrested for drug use. The greatest victims of the drug laws are the children whose mothers are incarcerated.
As females become sexually active at younger and younger ages, state legislatures have stupidly raised the age at which it is legal to engage in sexual activity. Today, a significant percentage of new prisoners are young men imprisoned for engaging in sexual activity with teenage girls. In the US, criminal justice (sic) has more to do with ruining people than with punishing criminals.
I have written often about wrongful convictions. We know that wrongful conviction is a serious problem when the advent of DNA evidence has led to the release of a significant number of innocent people who were convicted of murder and rape, and when a number of law schools feel that it is necessary for them to operate innocence projects that work for the release of the wrongfully convicted.
Prosecutors are like President Bush. They absolutely refuse to admit that they ever make a mistake and have to be forced to disgorge their innocent victims. Nothing makes a prosecutor more angry than to have to give back a wrongfully convicted person's life.
Lt. William Strong and Christopher Gaynor are two of the hundreds of thousands of wrongfully convicted Americans whose lives have been ruined by an irresponsible and corrupt criminal justice (sic) system.
In Virginia, Lt. William Strong, the son of a military family, grew tired of his wife's unfaithfulness and filed for divorce. The unfaithful wife retaliated by accusing Strong of marital rape. Neither police nor prosecutor investigated the charge. Instead, they proceeded to set Strong up for plea conviction. The arresting officer recommended Strong's attorney, an incompetent who owed his cases to the police.
Strong insisted on a trial, but the arresting officer and attorney convinced Strong's parents that with a plea their son would be out in a year. No one told Strong or his parents the implications of a plea, and Virginia Judge Westbrook Parker, playing to feminist voters, gave Strong a life sentence of 60 years.
The case has many unsavory appearances. If reports are true, the arresting officer paid numerous visits to Strong's unfaithful wife, as did Strong's attorney, and the arresting officer ended up separating from his wife and leaving the police force.
The perk kit exists and Strong could be given a DNA test, but Virginia refuses on the grounds that Strong admitted his guilt. Strong says the semen, if any, is that of the wife's boyfriend.
Strong has been in prison for 15 years on the basis of zero evidence. He is in prison because he and his parents trusted the police officer and the criminal justice (sic) system.
Another Virginia case is that of Christopher Gaynor. Gaynor was the coach of an adolescent skate board team, which he took to New York City for a competition. One of the adolescents expressed his intention to buy drugs. Gaynor forbade it and threatened to report the boy to his parents.
The irresponsible kid retaliated by accusing Gaynor of sex abuse.
There was no evidence. There was no investigation. Gaynor had never displayed any homosexual tendencies. The entire team knew the accusation was false. Gaynor went to trial. He was framed by the prosecutor with the help of the judge, who intimidated Gaynor's witnesses by incarcerating one of the kids overnight without cause. Gaynor was sentenced to 32 years with no possibility of parole on the basis of no evidence, just an unproven accusation. His trial was full of irregularities, and the same judge who sentenced him denied Gaynor a new trial.
Ten years later, this past summer Noah J. Seidenberg, who brought the unproven accusation against Gaynor, died apparently of drug overdose at the age of 24 years.
There is no institution in America that is a greater failure than the criminal justice (sic) system. The system can do nothing but fail, because the search for truth and justice plays no part in the system. The prosecutor's career depends on his conviction rate, not on discovering the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Virginia's governor could pardon Strong and Gaynor. But feminists and "child advocates" would scream and yell, as would prosecutors and "law and order conservatives." Nothing matters to these groups but their own single-issue, and justice is not part of it. In America justice cannot be done unless a governor is prepared to sacrifice his own political career in the interest of justice.
What kind of people are we when we exercise no oversight over a criminal justice (sic) system that destroys the lives of innocent people with lies?
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
Prosecutor's Gone Wild: America's Injustice System is Criminal
By Paul Craig Roberts
Counterpunch
December 12, 2006
The Christmas season is a time to remember the unfortunate. Among the most unfortunate people are those who have been wrongly convicted and imprisoned.
The United States has a large number of wrongfully convicted. There are many reasons for this. One is that the US has the largest percentage of its citizens imprisoned of all countries in the world, including China. One of every 32 US adults is behind bars, on probation or on parole. Given a wrongful conviction rate, the larger the percentage of citizens in jails, the greater the number of wrongfully convicted.
According to the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College in London, the US has 700,000 more of its citizens incarcerated than China, a country with a population four to five times larger than that of the US, and 1,330,000 more people in prison than crime-ridden Russia. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. The American incarceration rate is seven times higher than that of European countries. Either America is the land of criminals, or something is seriously wrong with the criminal justice (sic) system in "the land of the free."
In the US the wrongful conviction rate is extremely high. One reason is that hardly any of the convicted have had a jury trial. No peers have heard the evidence against them and found them guilty. In the US criminal justice (sic) system, more than 95% of all felony cases are settled with a plea bargain.
Before jumping to the conclusion that an innocent person would not admit guilt, be aware of how the process works. Any defendant who stands trial faces more severe penalties if found guilty than if he agrees to a plea bargain. Prosecutors don't like trials because they are time consuming and a lot of work. To discourage trials, prosecutors offer defendants reduced charges and lighter sentences than would result from a jury conviction. In the event a defendant insists upon his innocence, prosecutors pile on charges until the defendant's lawyer and family convince the defendant that a jury is likely to give the prosecutor a conviction on at least one of the many charges and that the penalty will be greater than a negotiated plea.
The criminal justice (sic) system today consists of a process whereby a defendant is coerced into admitting to a crime in order to escape more severe punishment for maintaining his innocence. Many of the crimes for which people are imprisoned never occurred. They are made up crimes created by the process of negotiation to close a case.
This takes most of the work out of the system and, thereby, suits police, prosecutors, and judges to a tee. Police do not have to be careful about evidence, because they know that no more than one case out of twenty will ever be tested in the courtroom.
Prosecutors do not have to make decisions about which cases to prosecute or risk losing cases. By coercing pleas, prosecutors can prosecute every case and boast of extremely high conviction rates. When prosecutors had to decide which cases to prosecute, they had to examine the evidence and to investigate the defendant's side of the story. No more. The evidence seldom comes into play. In place of a determination of innocence or guilt, prosecutors negotiate with lawyers the crimes to which a defendant will enter a plea.
Prosecutors have lost sight of innocence and guilt. What we have today is a conveyor belt that convicts almost everyone who is charged. Every defense attorney knows that today prosecutors can purchase testimony against a defendant by paying a "witness" with money, dropped charges, or reduced time to testify against the defendant. Many prosecutors become highly annoyed at any disruption of the plea bargain conviction process. A defendant that incurs the prosecutor's ire is certain to be framed on far more serious charges than a negotiated plea.
Going to trial is no guarantee that an innocent person will be acquitted. Prosecutors routinely withhold exculpatory evidence and suborn perjury. Generally, jurors trust prosecutors and are unaware of their inventory of dirty tricks. Few jurors can tell the difference between bogus evidence and real evidence. For example, psychologists and criminologists have established beyond all doubt that eye-witnesses are wrong 50% of the time. Yet, jurors usually believe eye-witnesses unless they think the witness has it in for the defendant and is lying.
Prosecutors—and there are still a few—who are meticulous about their cases and fair to defendants show poor results compared to the high convictions attained by prosecutors who run plea bargain mills and frame-up factories. Today's criminal justice (sic) system is results orientated, not justice orientated.
In the past judges could give light sentences to people they believed had been wrongfully convicted. But "law and order conservatives" have taken sentencing discretion away from judges. Today prosecutors hold all the cards.
Many conservatives believe that prisons are full of hardened criminals who liberal judges are determined to release to prey upon society. In truth, the largest percentage of prisoners are drug users who are victims of the conservatives' "war on drugs." Drug offenses account for 49 percent of federal prison population growth between 1995 and 2003. Many of these prisoners are mothers arrested for drug use. The greatest victims of the drug laws are the children whose mothers are incarcerated.
As females become sexually active at younger and younger ages, state legislatures have stupidly raised the age at which it is legal to engage in sexual activity. Today, a significant percentage of new prisoners are young men imprisoned for engaging in sexual activity with teenage girls. In the US, criminal justice (sic) has more to do with ruining people than with punishing criminals.
I have written often about wrongful convictions. We know that wrongful conviction is a serious problem when the advent of DNA evidence has led to the release of a significant number of innocent people who were convicted of murder and rape, and when a number of law schools feel that it is necessary for them to operate innocence projects that work for the release of the wrongfully convicted.
Prosecutors are like President Bush. They absolutely refuse to admit that they ever make a mistake and have to be forced to disgorge their innocent victims. Nothing makes a prosecutor more angry than to have to give back a wrongfully convicted person's life.
Lt. William Strong and Christopher Gaynor are two of the hundreds of thousands of wrongfully convicted Americans whose lives have been ruined by an irresponsible and corrupt criminal justice (sic) system.
In Virginia, Lt. William Strong, the son of a military family, grew tired of his wife's unfaithfulness and filed for divorce. The unfaithful wife retaliated by accusing Strong of marital rape. Neither police nor prosecutor investigated the charge. Instead, they proceeded to set Strong up for plea conviction. The arresting officer recommended Strong's attorney, an incompetent who owed his cases to the police.
Strong insisted on a trial, but the arresting officer and attorney convinced Strong's parents that with a plea their son would be out in a year. No one told Strong or his parents the implications of a plea, and Virginia Judge Westbrook Parker, playing to feminist voters, gave Strong a life sentence of 60 years.
The case has many unsavory appearances. If reports are true, the arresting officer paid numerous visits to Strong's unfaithful wife, as did Strong's attorney, and the arresting officer ended up separating from his wife and leaving the police force.
The perk kit exists and Strong could be given a DNA test, but Virginia refuses on the grounds that Strong admitted his guilt. Strong says the semen, if any, is that of the wife's boyfriend.
Strong has been in prison for 15 years on the basis of zero evidence. He is in prison because he and his parents trusted the police officer and the criminal justice (sic) system.
Another Virginia case is that of Christopher Gaynor. Gaynor was the coach of an adolescent skate board team, which he took to New York City for a competition. One of the adolescents expressed his intention to buy drugs. Gaynor forbade it and threatened to report the boy to his parents.
The irresponsible kid retaliated by accusing Gaynor of sex abuse.
There was no evidence. There was no investigation. Gaynor had never displayed any homosexual tendencies. The entire team knew the accusation was false. Gaynor went to trial. He was framed by the prosecutor with the help of the judge, who intimidated Gaynor's witnesses by incarcerating one of the kids overnight without cause. Gaynor was sentenced to 32 years with no possibility of parole on the basis of no evidence, just an unproven accusation. His trial was full of irregularities, and the same judge who sentenced him denied Gaynor a new trial.
Ten years later, this past summer Noah J. Seidenberg, who brought the unproven accusation against Gaynor, died apparently of drug overdose at the age of 24 years.
There is no institution in America that is a greater failure than the criminal justice (sic) system. The system can do nothing but fail, because the search for truth and justice plays no part in the system. The prosecutor's career depends on his conviction rate, not on discovering the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Virginia's governor could pardon Strong and Gaynor. But feminists and "child advocates" would scream and yell, as would prosecutors and "law and order conservatives." Nothing matters to these groups but their own single-issue, and justice is not part of it. In America justice cannot be done unless a governor is prepared to sacrifice his own political career in the interest of justice.
What kind of people are we when we exercise no oversight over a criminal justice (sic) system that destroys the lives of innocent people with lies?
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
On-Line Petition and Video of Fund Raiser Now Available
On-Line Petition for Efren Paredes, Jr.
Sunday, November 26, 2006 an electronic petition to support the release of Efren Paredes, Jr. was created. We have set a tentative goal of gathering 1,000 signatures. If it appears we will exceed that number sooner than anticipated we can always extend the goal. The more signatures we can amass the better.
Along with signing the On-line petition people can leave a comment on the petition for others to read. This will prove helpful encouraging others to sign the petition. Please sign the petition and encourage others to do so as well. We will use the petition to urge the Governor of the State of Michigan to pardon or commute Efren's sentence if an appellate court will not grant him a new trial.
Please forward this e-mail to others in your address book and ask them to do the same. Participating in this petition-drive is a very substantial contribution you can make towards helping Efren's campaign for justice.
If we can have 100 people get 10 others to participate in this project we can reach our 1,000 signature goal quickly and then extend our goal to include additional signatures. A link to the petition appears below:
www.petitionspot.com/petitions/4Efren
Video of Fund Raiser for Efren Paredes, Jr.
Below please find a link to the edited video of the José Guadalupe Posada Dia de los Muertos (Day of the Dead) art exhibit and Efren's private investigator fund raiser that Scott Elliott graciously hosted at The Citadel on October 27, 2006.
You are encouraged to view the video and share it with others. This, and other videos we plan on creating, can be utilized to assist us spread the word about Efren's wrongful conviction and generate additional support. Efren's mother is currently working on creating a video message asking people to support Efren as the next contribution to the video project.
You can share the video link by either forwarding this e-mail to others or by highlighting the link below, copying it, and pasting it into other e-mails you send.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YGkqZglbOU
To learn more about the injustice against Efren Paredes, Jr. you are encouraged to visit The Injustice Must End (TIME) web site at http://www.4efren.com/.
Thank you for your continued support.
Sunday, November 26, 2006 an electronic petition to support the release of Efren Paredes, Jr. was created. We have set a tentative goal of gathering 1,000 signatures. If it appears we will exceed that number sooner than anticipated we can always extend the goal. The more signatures we can amass the better.
Along with signing the On-line petition people can leave a comment on the petition for others to read. This will prove helpful encouraging others to sign the petition. Please sign the petition and encourage others to do so as well. We will use the petition to urge the Governor of the State of Michigan to pardon or commute Efren's sentence if an appellate court will not grant him a new trial.
Please forward this e-mail to others in your address book and ask them to do the same. Participating in this petition-drive is a very substantial contribution you can make towards helping Efren's campaign for justice.
If we can have 100 people get 10 others to participate in this project we can reach our 1,000 signature goal quickly and then extend our goal to include additional signatures. A link to the petition appears below:
www.petitionspot.com/petitions/4Efren
Video of Fund Raiser for Efren Paredes, Jr.
Below please find a link to the edited video of the José Guadalupe Posada Dia de los Muertos (Day of the Dead) art exhibit and Efren's private investigator fund raiser that Scott Elliott graciously hosted at The Citadel on October 27, 2006.
You are encouraged to view the video and share it with others. This, and other videos we plan on creating, can be utilized to assist us spread the word about Efren's wrongful conviction and generate additional support. Efren's mother is currently working on creating a video message asking people to support Efren as the next contribution to the video project.
You can share the video link by either forwarding this e-mail to others or by highlighting the link below, copying it, and pasting it into other e-mails you send.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YGkqZglbOU
To learn more about the injustice against Efren Paredes, Jr. you are encouraged to visit The Injustice Must End (TIME) web site at http://www.4efren.com/.
Thank you for your continued support.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
The Injustice Must End for Efren Paredes, Jr.
This blog was created and is maintained by supporters of Efren Paredes, Jr. and committee members of The Injustice Must End (TIME). TIME is a citizens' committee created to help educate the public about the injustice surrounding the wrongful conviction of Efren Paredes, Jr., a 33-year-old Latino male who has been wrongly imprisoned since age 15.
Efren received three life sentences for a 1989 murder and armed robbery he did not commit in St. Joseph, Michigan, USA; a crime to which others have plead guilty and admitted involvement. He was an honor student at the time of his arrest with no previous criminal record, and has spent more time in prison that he did a free boy in society.
More information about this injustice is available at http://www.4efren.com/.
Part of our objective is to also generate additional support to help vindicate Efren of the false charges against him. You are encouraged to visit this blog to learn about all the latest efforts underway to help Efren's campaign for justice. We will also be posting information about how you can contribute to Efren's efforts as well.
Please share this blog with others, encourage them to participate in the dialogue about this miscarriage of justice, and ask them to become actively involved in helping end this ongoing human rights abuse.
There is no place in a civilized nation for such egregious cases of injustice to manifest. Lend us a few moments of your time to help correct this injustice. The life and future of an innocent 15-year-old depends on it.
Click here to contact us anytime via e-mail to discuss anything on this blog or pertaining to Efren's case.
Thank you for reading these words, for your interest, and for visiting this blog. We look forward to you visiting again.
Efren received three life sentences for a 1989 murder and armed robbery he did not commit in St. Joseph, Michigan, USA; a crime to which others have plead guilty and admitted involvement. He was an honor student at the time of his arrest with no previous criminal record, and has spent more time in prison that he did a free boy in society.
More information about this injustice is available at http://www.4efren.com/.
Part of our objective is to also generate additional support to help vindicate Efren of the false charges against him. You are encouraged to visit this blog to learn about all the latest efforts underway to help Efren's campaign for justice. We will also be posting information about how you can contribute to Efren's efforts as well.
Please share this blog with others, encourage them to participate in the dialogue about this miscarriage of justice, and ask them to become actively involved in helping end this ongoing human rights abuse.
There is no place in a civilized nation for such egregious cases of injustice to manifest. Lend us a few moments of your time to help correct this injustice. The life and future of an innocent 15-year-old depends on it.
Click here to contact us anytime via e-mail to discuss anything on this blog or pertaining to Efren's case.
Thank you for reading these words, for your interest, and for visiting this blog. We look forward to you visiting again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)