by Efren Paredes, Jr.
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others." —Nelson Mandela, 1994 Inaugural Speech
March 15, 2007 marked the beginning of my 18th year of wrongful imprisonment for a crime I did not commit. And while it is a sad day for my family, supporters, and me, it is also a good day in other ways.
One of the things I have chosen to do with my time while in prison is make the most of each moment. Rather than dwell on all the evils that have been perpetrated against me for no reason at all, I have channeled that energy into my continued growth and development, and helping others.
I have transformed the dark, deplorable milieu I have found myself in for nearly two decades into a radiant chamber of wisdom, and fostered the same in others. I have learned very valuable lessons about life and refused to succumb to the injustice that has held me captive. While I am physically captive, my mind and spirit will always be free by the grace of God.
The wisdom I have gained through this experience is enormous and expansive. It is this wisdom, my faith in God, and continued support of my family, friends, and individuals who have selflessly supported my campaign for justice, that have kept me moving forward and given me the strength to continue warding off the relentless effort to extinguish the light of hope that burns within me.
These individuals have been there for me in my darkest hours and offered their love and support throughout this very difficult experience. Without them the support that has been generated, and the progress that has been accomplished, could not have taken place. They are each my heroes and I am deeply appreciative of all that they do on my behalf.
So, rather than shine light on the unfortunate 18 years of my wrongful imprisonment, I want to take this opportunity to shine light on the people working to free me and salute them for their efforts that do not go unnoticed. Like every other situation I have transformed from darkness into light, I thought it was fitting to do it in this instance as well.
Our concerted efforts are going to produce justice. I am confident of this. And, with each passing day it becomes even more evident. But it also grows increasingly evident that the progress we witness isn't borne on its own. We reap what we sow, and the size of the harvest will be dependent on the labor that is exerted. Together we can make the harvest bountiful.
Please keep gathering signatures for the online petition for new trial available at http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/4Efren and please continue generating much needed support. We currently have nearly 160 electronic signatures for the petition and over 300 handwritten signatures. We are nearly halfway to our goal of 1,000 signatures.
Other recent positive developments that have manifested in recent weeks I would like to share with you are as follows:
1. An article was published in Workers World, a New York-based newspaper, about Elena Herrada's support of my campaign for justice. The writing called upon people to sign my online petition for new trial/commutation and was a great source of public relations for us. The article is available online at www.workers.org/2007/us/paredes-0222/.
2. Elena Herrada, Sherry Meyer, and another committee member, attended the 14th annual Dia de la Mujer (Day of the Woman) Conference held on February 24, 2007 at the Kellogg Hotel & Convention Center at Michigan State University. While at the conference they gathered over 200 signatures for my petition for new trial and commutation request. Elena spoke on stage before a large room full of people about our campaign during one of the lunch periods and made a strong plea urging people to get involved and support our cause.
3. Since the above event transpired Elena Herrada has gathered an additional 100 petition signatures. Elena continues to work hard on this campaign and plans to visit me again on Saturday, March 24 to discuss how to proceed next with the petition-drive. We will also discuss other strategies to increase our public relations work.
4. A very prominent nun, Sister Julie Vieira, has signed my petition for new trial/commutation and published a post on her blog about our petition campaign. Sister Vieira's blog, A Nun's Life, has gained international popularity on the Internet. A member of the religious order of Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, works at Loyola Press in Chicago and blogs daily about religious life, politics, and other issues. Her blog is very popular and was recently featured in The Detroit Free Press because of all the wonderful things she has done. The post about me can be viewed on her blog at http://nuns2day.wordpress.com/2007/03/09/a-couple-requests-for-help/.
5. A web site named Noahide Reflections has also posted an article on its site recently urging people to support my campaign for justice and sign our petition for new trial/commutation. Additionally, they have included a link to our web site. The post about me on the Noahide Reflections web site can be viewed at http://noahide.typepad.com/noahide_reflections/2007/02/please_help_efr.html.
My blog continues to be updated weekly at http://4efren.blogspot.com/, there have been updates to my web site at http://www.4efren.com/, and there is now a Picasa photo album that is available for viewing that features photos of me before my arrest, during court proceedings, and recent photos taken during my incarceration. The latter can be viewed at http://picasaweb.google.com/4Efren. Please also visit my MySpace page at www.myspace.com/4Efren to see all the recent changes and additions of friends that have been made there as well.
Thank you for your continued support, and thank you for your strength and dedication to justice. I am a stronger person because of it.
With Warm Regards,
Efren
Free Efren Orange Banner
Friday, March 16, 2007
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Dallas DA to Review Decades of Convictions
NPR Morning Edition
Legal Affairs
by Wade Goodwyn
February 24, 2007
February 23, 2007 — Dallas' new district attorney, Craig Watkins, says he will open his files to the Innocence Project and work with the group to examine hundreds of cases over the past 30 years. The goal is to see whether DNA tests might reveal wrongful convictions.
The move reflects the magnitude of the change that has occurred in the Dallas DA's office over the last six weeks. Watkins was elected the first black district attorney in Texas.
"It's a whole different world in the Dallas criminal justice system," says defense attorney Gary Udashen. "It is a world where if a client of ours is innocent, we feel like there's openness in the District Attorney's office to hear what we have say, to look at what we have to show them, where we don't anticipate resistance every step of the way."
Udashen's firm alone has had seven Dallas clients who were convicted, sent to prison, exhausted their appeals and then ultimately — with the pro bono help of Udashen and his colleagues — were found to be innocent.
Udashen says Dallas used to be like many other cities in Texas when it came to the DA's office. If it got a conviction, it defended that conviction to the bitter end, even if strong scientific evidence was later uncovered that the convicted was wrongly convicted.
This occurs most often in cases that are brought to trial built solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness, often the victim. But Udashen says that Watkins has decided that defending wrongful convictions is not going to be part of the job.
"Well, he has taken a completely different approach to questions of innocence... where he is going to cooperate with these innocence projects reviews of these cases, give them the information they need," he says. "And that active involvement in proving people innocent is something I've never seen a district attorney do before."
Watkins puts it this way: "I am cut from a different cloth."
At 39, he says he's seen both sides of the criminal justice system in Dallas, good and the bad. Dallas has already released 12 men convicted of sexual assault, and that was with the previous DA fighting it every step of the way. That's more than any other county in the nation, and more than all but two states.
"And when you tested 36 people and 12 of them came up to be not guilty as a result of DNA testing, then, yes, a red flag is raised," Watkins says. "So we need to look at what we've been doing in the past and try to right those wrongs."
So Watkins is opening his files to the Texas Innocence Project. North Texas law students supervised by seven veteran former prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers will begin deciding which cases merit further investigation.
"In a state that is a national hotspot, Dallas is the hottest of the hotspots in state right now," says Jeff Blackburn, the Innocence Project's Texas director. "What'd happened in Dallas is that a lot of samples, unlike other any other parts of the state, were preserved, and they're still there."
In a twist of irony, Dallas has long outsourced its lab work. And instead of destroying evidence post-conviction like many law enforcement labs, the private labs preserved all the evidence. Blackburn says as a result, Dallas has a treasure trove of potentially exonerating DNA evidence.
"It would be safe to say that right now Dallas is on the edge of opening up in a very revealing way what the system in Texas is really all about," Blackburn says.■
Legal Affairs
by Wade Goodwyn
February 24, 2007
February 23, 2007 — Dallas' new district attorney, Craig Watkins, says he will open his files to the Innocence Project and work with the group to examine hundreds of cases over the past 30 years. The goal is to see whether DNA tests might reveal wrongful convictions.
The move reflects the magnitude of the change that has occurred in the Dallas DA's office over the last six weeks. Watkins was elected the first black district attorney in Texas.
"It's a whole different world in the Dallas criminal justice system," says defense attorney Gary Udashen. "It is a world where if a client of ours is innocent, we feel like there's openness in the District Attorney's office to hear what we have say, to look at what we have to show them, where we don't anticipate resistance every step of the way."
Udashen's firm alone has had seven Dallas clients who were convicted, sent to prison, exhausted their appeals and then ultimately — with the pro bono help of Udashen and his colleagues — were found to be innocent.
Udashen says Dallas used to be like many other cities in Texas when it came to the DA's office. If it got a conviction, it defended that conviction to the bitter end, even if strong scientific evidence was later uncovered that the convicted was wrongly convicted.
This occurs most often in cases that are brought to trial built solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness, often the victim. But Udashen says that Watkins has decided that defending wrongful convictions is not going to be part of the job.
"Well, he has taken a completely different approach to questions of innocence... where he is going to cooperate with these innocence projects reviews of these cases, give them the information they need," he says. "And that active involvement in proving people innocent is something I've never seen a district attorney do before."
Watkins puts it this way: "I am cut from a different cloth."
At 39, he says he's seen both sides of the criminal justice system in Dallas, good and the bad. Dallas has already released 12 men convicted of sexual assault, and that was with the previous DA fighting it every step of the way. That's more than any other county in the nation, and more than all but two states.
"And when you tested 36 people and 12 of them came up to be not guilty as a result of DNA testing, then, yes, a red flag is raised," Watkins says. "So we need to look at what we've been doing in the past and try to right those wrongs."
So Watkins is opening his files to the Texas Innocence Project. North Texas law students supervised by seven veteran former prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers will begin deciding which cases merit further investigation.
"In a state that is a national hotspot, Dallas is the hottest of the hotspots in state right now," says Jeff Blackburn, the Innocence Project's Texas director. "What'd happened in Dallas is that a lot of samples, unlike other any other parts of the state, were preserved, and they're still there."
In a twist of irony, Dallas has long outsourced its lab work. And instead of destroying evidence post-conviction like many law enforcement labs, the private labs preserved all the evidence. Blackburn says as a result, Dallas has a treasure trove of potentially exonerating DNA evidence.
"It would be safe to say that right now Dallas is on the edge of opening up in a very revealing way what the system in Texas is really all about," Blackburn says.■
Monday, March 5, 2007
'Snitch Evidence' Under Fire
More cases involving informants overturned
by Paul Egan
The Detroit News
February 20, 2007
DETROIT -- When David Eddleman was convicted of murder in the 1996 shooting death of 16-year-old Joane Gergescu on Detroit's west side, the jury based its decision largely upon the testimony of a cellmate who claimed to have heard him confess.
But a federal appeals panel found that Eddleman's cellmate had plenty of reason to lie.
Eddleman, who will be freed this month or granted a new trial in the case, is joining a growing number of defendants whose convictions are being overturned because of "snitch testimony" by jailhouse informants, a practice under increasing scrutiny in Michigan and across the nation.
It's also the subject of author John Grisham's first work of nonfiction. Grisham's bestseller "The Innocent Man" examines the case of Ron Williamson, who was convicted of murdering a cocktail waitress and sentenced to death largely on the testimony of snitches and convicts. DNA evidence later exonerated Williamson.
A 2005 study by the Northwestern University School of Law Center on Wrongful Convictions found that of 111 death row inmates exonerated since the 1970s, 46 percent of the convictions had relied on snitch testimony.
Beyond Eddleman's case, Michigan lawyers are alarmed by the recent revelations related to alleged abuse of confidential informant testimony by indicted former federal prosecutor Richard Convertino.
"In a perfect world, I wouldn't allow jailhouse informants," said Detroit defense attorney Mark Kriger.
Cases examined
Lawyers are examining Convertino's cases following his 2006 indictment on charges of misconduct in prosecuting the nation's first terrorism trial after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The star witness in the terrorism case, Youssef Hmimssa, was exposed as a serial con artist. In one of Convertino's drug cases under review, federal court records show the prosecutor arranged a secret early release for Hans Thomas, a violent convict who had admitted to participating in murders and shooting into a home with children inside.
Thomas was released pursuant to a sealed order in return for his testimony against an accused drug trafficker.
Thomas was charged with a new murder within a year.
Sentence reduced
In return for cooperation in the same drug case, Convertino arranged a sharp sentence reduction for convict Tali Alexander, who had admitted to shooting at Washtenaw County Sheriff's deputies; then Convertino arranged for
Alexander to share a cell with another defendant in the terrorism case, Karim Koubriti, lawyer Carole Stanyar alleged in a court filing.
"Taking full advantage of this golden opportunity," Alexander reported that Koubriti admitted to him he was a terrorist, according to the court brief.
A terrorism-related conviction against Koubriti was later dismissed.
Convertino has pleaded not guilty to conspiracy, obstruction of justice and other charges and awaits trial in July.
His lawyer, William Sullivan, would not comment on Stanyar's allegations but said Convertino "always acted zealously to protect the safety of his community, and his ethics are unimpeachable."
Kenneth Wyniemko, a Rochester Hills man who spent nine years in prison before DNA evidence cleared him of a rape he did not commit, said he will never forget his former cellmate testifying at his trial.
'It was too concise'
"It was almost like his testimony was memorized," Wyniemko said last week. "It was too concise. It matched almost word for word the (police) reports."
Glen McCormick testified Wyniemko confessed to him in the Macomb County Jail. Facing a possible life sentence as a habitual offender, McCormick got less than a year for attempted armed robbery in return for his cooperation.
He later recanted.
"Judges have to have the courage to ban that type of testimony altogether," Wyniemko said. But Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, who prosecuted the Eddleman case and many more murder cases when he worked in the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office, said jailhouse informants often provide crucial information.
"When people get locked up together they get bored and they just spill their guts," Cox said.
Cox said prosecutors must use common sense and evaluate the testimony of jailhouse informants in the context of other facts in the case and corroborating evidence.
Defense lawyer Kriger said jailhouse informants provide among the most unreliable types of evidence prosecutors can use.
"Jailhouse informants have the greatest motive to fabricate and are likely to fabricate in order to extricate themselves from their own difficulties," Kriger said.
U.S. Attorney Stephen Murphy draws a distinction between the classic jailhouse informant who claims to have heard a confession and others who may have been offered deals in return for their testimony.
"Point blank, the only way that we can convict the most serious of criminals is to use the testimony of other criminals," Murphy said. "(But) we need to be even more cautious."
by Paul Egan
The Detroit News
February 20, 2007
DETROIT -- When David Eddleman was convicted of murder in the 1996 shooting death of 16-year-old Joane Gergescu on Detroit's west side, the jury based its decision largely upon the testimony of a cellmate who claimed to have heard him confess.
But a federal appeals panel found that Eddleman's cellmate had plenty of reason to lie.
Eddleman, who will be freed this month or granted a new trial in the case, is joining a growing number of defendants whose convictions are being overturned because of "snitch testimony" by jailhouse informants, a practice under increasing scrutiny in Michigan and across the nation.
It's also the subject of author John Grisham's first work of nonfiction. Grisham's bestseller "The Innocent Man" examines the case of Ron Williamson, who was convicted of murdering a cocktail waitress and sentenced to death largely on the testimony of snitches and convicts. DNA evidence later exonerated Williamson.
A 2005 study by the Northwestern University School of Law Center on Wrongful Convictions found that of 111 death row inmates exonerated since the 1970s, 46 percent of the convictions had relied on snitch testimony.
Beyond Eddleman's case, Michigan lawyers are alarmed by the recent revelations related to alleged abuse of confidential informant testimony by indicted former federal prosecutor Richard Convertino.
"In a perfect world, I wouldn't allow jailhouse informants," said Detroit defense attorney Mark Kriger.
Cases examined
Lawyers are examining Convertino's cases following his 2006 indictment on charges of misconduct in prosecuting the nation's first terrorism trial after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The star witness in the terrorism case, Youssef Hmimssa, was exposed as a serial con artist. In one of Convertino's drug cases under review, federal court records show the prosecutor arranged a secret early release for Hans Thomas, a violent convict who had admitted to participating in murders and shooting into a home with children inside.
Thomas was released pursuant to a sealed order in return for his testimony against an accused drug trafficker.
Thomas was charged with a new murder within a year.
Sentence reduced
In return for cooperation in the same drug case, Convertino arranged a sharp sentence reduction for convict Tali Alexander, who had admitted to shooting at Washtenaw County Sheriff's deputies; then Convertino arranged for
Alexander to share a cell with another defendant in the terrorism case, Karim Koubriti, lawyer Carole Stanyar alleged in a court filing.
"Taking full advantage of this golden opportunity," Alexander reported that Koubriti admitted to him he was a terrorist, according to the court brief.
A terrorism-related conviction against Koubriti was later dismissed.
Convertino has pleaded not guilty to conspiracy, obstruction of justice and other charges and awaits trial in July.
His lawyer, William Sullivan, would not comment on Stanyar's allegations but said Convertino "always acted zealously to protect the safety of his community, and his ethics are unimpeachable."
Kenneth Wyniemko, a Rochester Hills man who spent nine years in prison before DNA evidence cleared him of a rape he did not commit, said he will never forget his former cellmate testifying at his trial.
'It was too concise'
"It was almost like his testimony was memorized," Wyniemko said last week. "It was too concise. It matched almost word for word the (police) reports."
Glen McCormick testified Wyniemko confessed to him in the Macomb County Jail. Facing a possible life sentence as a habitual offender, McCormick got less than a year for attempted armed robbery in return for his cooperation.
He later recanted.
"Judges have to have the courage to ban that type of testimony altogether," Wyniemko said. But Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, who prosecuted the Eddleman case and many more murder cases when he worked in the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office, said jailhouse informants often provide crucial information.
"When people get locked up together they get bored and they just spill their guts," Cox said.
Cox said prosecutors must use common sense and evaluate the testimony of jailhouse informants in the context of other facts in the case and corroborating evidence.
Defense lawyer Kriger said jailhouse informants provide among the most unreliable types of evidence prosecutors can use.
"Jailhouse informants have the greatest motive to fabricate and are likely to fabricate in order to extricate themselves from their own difficulties," Kriger said.
U.S. Attorney Stephen Murphy draws a distinction between the classic jailhouse informant who claims to have heard a confession and others who may have been offered deals in return for their testimony.
"Point blank, the only way that we can convict the most serious of criminals is to use the testimony of other criminals," Murphy said. "(But) we need to be even more cautious."
Monday, February 26, 2007
"Diversity is a necessary part of our lives. Why?"
by Efren Paredes, Jr.
February 4, 2007
Diversity lies at the very matrix of all creation. From the protons and neutrons that are the composition of molecules, the billions of cells that form the human body, to the many planets and stars that comprise our solar system, diversity teaches us the value of order, coalescence and balance.
The term "diversity" embodies the adage, "The sum is greater than its parts." It is a reminder that we live in a pluralistic society, and that we each possess unique qualities; the ingredients for a melting pot of greatness.
Diversity denotes change and progression. It recognizes the variations in all things and is a symbol of mutual respect and understanding. Its powerful influence opens eyes, and topples walls. It inspires us to read, critique and appreciate the world more closely.
Through diversity myriad ideas are borne. The formulation of the most important cures and solutions to society's ills have spawned from the minds of diverse people and thoughts. All great nations are governed by cabinets and councils comprised of individuals from various backgrounds and experiences.
Diversity is a concept with boundless possibilities. It is a universal principle that should be taught to every child from birth and made an indelible part of their lives. It nourishes critical thinking, stirs up excitement, and creates bonds.
When we are children we play with other children and make no distinction between our peers. We view them with a pure heart and recognize they are human like us. During this time our intentions and feelings about others are innocent and pure.
It isn't until our young fertile minds become polluted with prejudice and emphasis on the differences between people by the influences of others that we abandon our innocence and embrace destructive views of other human beings. We totally forget that we should share the earth we were given the opportunity to live on, and we should enjoy it together rather than try to hoard the gifts of life.
One of the most important events and examples of diversity that occurred in the nation's history was the abolishment of slavery. Slavery was one of the worst forms of cruelty and evils to manifest in the country. It destroyed lives and damaged the psyche of generations.
The end of slavery was the beginning of diverse changes that swept the country. If not for the end of slavery it would still be ravishing the country today and we would still live in a segregated society.
No civilized society can thrive without diversity. It will only become increasingly degenerate over time and be the cause of its own demise. There are societies who have plummeted into the annals of history due to their refusal to embrace diversity and celebrate the differences that are a natural part of our lives. Arrogance and false senses of superiority have torn to shreds the moral fabric of great nations.
I view the absence of diversity in our lives as akin to the absence of sustenance. It contravenes the very concept of animation and destroys the human spirit. The presence of diversity, on the other hand, represents a life-sustaining force and the perpetuity of life.
Diversity is essential for people to appreciate the contributions made by every human being in the world regardless of their origin, beliefs or way of life. Once properly understood and employed it can transform the entire world and renew its collective mind with progressive thoughts, thereby making it a better place.
February 4, 2007
Diversity lies at the very matrix of all creation. From the protons and neutrons that are the composition of molecules, the billions of cells that form the human body, to the many planets and stars that comprise our solar system, diversity teaches us the value of order, coalescence and balance.
The term "diversity" embodies the adage, "The sum is greater than its parts." It is a reminder that we live in a pluralistic society, and that we each possess unique qualities; the ingredients for a melting pot of greatness.
Diversity denotes change and progression. It recognizes the variations in all things and is a symbol of mutual respect and understanding. Its powerful influence opens eyes, and topples walls. It inspires us to read, critique and appreciate the world more closely.
Through diversity myriad ideas are borne. The formulation of the most important cures and solutions to society's ills have spawned from the minds of diverse people and thoughts. All great nations are governed by cabinets and councils comprised of individuals from various backgrounds and experiences.
Diversity is a concept with boundless possibilities. It is a universal principle that should be taught to every child from birth and made an indelible part of their lives. It nourishes critical thinking, stirs up excitement, and creates bonds.
When we are children we play with other children and make no distinction between our peers. We view them with a pure heart and recognize they are human like us. During this time our intentions and feelings about others are innocent and pure.
It isn't until our young fertile minds become polluted with prejudice and emphasis on the differences between people by the influences of others that we abandon our innocence and embrace destructive views of other human beings. We totally forget that we should share the earth we were given the opportunity to live on, and we should enjoy it together rather than try to hoard the gifts of life.
One of the most important events and examples of diversity that occurred in the nation's history was the abolishment of slavery. Slavery was one of the worst forms of cruelty and evils to manifest in the country. It destroyed lives and damaged the psyche of generations.
The end of slavery was the beginning of diverse changes that swept the country. If not for the end of slavery it would still be ravishing the country today and we would still live in a segregated society.
No civilized society can thrive without diversity. It will only become increasingly degenerate over time and be the cause of its own demise. There are societies who have plummeted into the annals of history due to their refusal to embrace diversity and celebrate the differences that are a natural part of our lives. Arrogance and false senses of superiority have torn to shreds the moral fabric of great nations.
I view the absence of diversity in our lives as akin to the absence of sustenance. It contravenes the very concept of animation and destroys the human spirit. The presence of diversity, on the other hand, represents a life-sustaining force and the perpetuity of life.
Diversity is essential for people to appreciate the contributions made by every human being in the world regardless of their origin, beliefs or way of life. Once properly understood and employed it can transform the entire world and renew its collective mind with progressive thoughts, thereby making it a better place.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Elena Herrada Joins Effort to Free Efren Paredes, Jr.
Saturday, January 20, 2007, Elena Herrada visited Efren Paredes, Jr. with his family for three-and-a-half hours at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility. During the visit Elena and Efren discussed myriad issues. Efren was eager to meet Elena and learn about the various activities she is involved in. He had heard a lot about Elena over the years and the work she has done on behalf of Latino people and really admired her tenacity and commitment to helping people. Elena is co-chair and founding member of the Committee for the Political Resurrection of Detroit, which focuses on domestic human rights. She is a member of the Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice, she has worked at a SEIU local, and was the president of a RWDSU (Retail, Worker, Department Store Union) local. Elena is a contributor to the newspaper The Michigan Citizen, and is also a longtime advocate for Detroit's Latino Community.A member of Latinos Unidos, in 2001 Elena produced a documentary film entitled Los Repatriados: Exiles from the Promised Land, about the depression-era deportation of Mexicans from Michigan. She also recently founded a new Latino Workers Center in Detroit, the Centro Obrero.
During Elena's visit with Efren she pledged to assist him, as well as his family and supporters, by joining The Injustice Must End (TIME) committee and combining their efforts to get justice for Efren. The visit went very well and was productive for all those present. Efren and Elena took a photograph during the visit which appears in this post.
On February 4, 2007 Elena disseminated an e-mail to her extensive list of e-mail contacts stating the following:
Dear friends:
I wish to direct you to the web site of Efren Paredes, Jr., from St. Joseph, Michigan, who was sentenced to three life terms at age 15. I have joined his family in their efforts to get him a new trial or a commutation this year, in 2007. There are several reasons I am assisting in this effort, but I ask you to read the materials and sign his online petition.
Please share this information with your lists who may be willing to help get this young man out of prison. We will all benefit from his freedom. He is a valuable asset to those of us in the human rights struggle. Read some of his writings and see the person he is.
Regardless of these facts, Efren has been wrongly incarcerated as a child and is now 33-years-old. He has been in prison for 18 years and his family and friends have not give up on him. We, in the rest of the state, are being asked by Efren and his family to add our voices and resources to this case.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Elena Herrada
Detroit Committee to Free Efren Paredes, Jr.
Please read Efren's web site at http://www.4efren.com/ and sign his online petition at www.petitionspot.com/petitions/4Efren.
On February 8, 2007 Elena dispatched an e-mail to Efren's family informing them of her intention to gather 1,000 signatures between now and March 15 to submit along with a commutation to Governor Granholm's office requesting Efren's release. She chose March 15 because it is the day Efren commences his 18th year of incarceration.
Elena will be fervently working during the next month to gather the necessary signatures in the Detroit area at various meetings and functions she will be attending. We are grateful for Elena's efforts and wish her much success with her with these endeavors. Please support Elena and our campaign to restore Efren's much deserved freedom.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Alan M. Dershowitz About Perjury in Court Proceedings
Testimony of Alan M. Dershowitz
House of Representatives Judiciary Committee
December 1, 1998
My name is Alan M. Dershowitz and I have been teaching criminal law at Harvard Law School for 35 years. I have also participated in the litigation — especially at the appellate level — of hundreds of federal and state cases, many of them involving perjury and the making of false statements. I have edited a casebook on criminal law and have written 10 books and hundreds of articles dealing with subjects relating to the issues before this committee. It is an honor to have been asked to share my experience and expertise with you all here today.
For nearly a quarter century, I have been teaching, lecturing and writing about the corrosive influences of perjury in our legal system, especially when committed by those whose job it is to enforce the law, and ignored — or even legitimized — by those whose responsibilities it is to check those who enforce the law.
On the basis of my academic and professional experience, I believe that no felony is committed more frequently in this country than the genre of perjury and false statements. Perjury during civil depositions and trials is so endemic that a respected appellate judge once observed that "experienced lawyers say that, in large cities, scarcely a trial occurs in which some witness does not lie." He quoted a wag to the effect that cases often are decided "according to the preponderance of perjury."[1] Filing false tax returns and other documents under pains and penalties of perjury is so rampant that everyone acknowledges that only a tiny fraction of offenders can be prosecuted. Making false statements to a law enforcement official is so commonplace that the Justice Department guidelines provide for prosecution of only some categories of this daily crime. Perjury at criminal trials is so common that whenever a defendant testifies and is found guilty, he has presumptively committed perjury.[2] Police perjury in criminal cases — particularly in the context of searches and other exclusionary rule issues — is so pervasive that the former police chief of San Jose and Kansas City has estimated that "hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests" alone.[3]
In comparison with their frequency, it is likely that false statement crimes are among the most underprosecuted in this country. Though state and federal statutes carry stringent penalties for perjury, few perjurers ever actually are subjected to those penalties. As prosecutor E. Michael McCann has concluded, "Outside of income tax evasion, perjury is…probably the most underprosecuted crime in America."[4] Moreover, there is evidence that false statements are among the most selectively prosecuted of all crimes, and that the criteria for selectivity bears little relationship to the willfulness or frequency of the lies, the certainty of the evidence or any other neutral criteria relating to the elements of perjury or other false statement crimes. Professor Richard H. Underwood, the Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky's law school, writes that:
more often, the [perjury] law has been invoked for revenge, or for the purpose of realizing some political end (the very base reason that lies are sometimes told!), or for the purpose of nabbing a criminal who might otherwise be difficult to nab, or, dare I say it, for the purpose of gaining some tactical advantage. Proving that perjury was committed, or that a "false statement" or a "false claim" was made, may be an easier, or a more palatable, brief for the prosecution.[5]
Historically, false statements generally have admitted of considerable variations in degree.[6] The core concept of perjury was that of "bearing false witness," a biblical term that consisted in accusing another of crime.[7]
Clearly, the most heinous brand of lying is the giving of false testimony that results in the imprisonment or even execution of an innocent person. Less egregious, but still quite serious, is false testimony that results in the conviction of a person who committed the criminal conduct, but whose rights were violated in a manner that would preclude conviction if the police were to testify truthfully. There are many other points on this continuum, ranging from making false statements about income or expenses to testifying falsely in civil trials. The least culpable genre of false statements are those that deny embarrassing personal conduct of marginal relevance to the matter at issue in the legal proceeding.
Much of the public debate about President Clinton and possible perjury appears to ignore the following important lessons of history:
1. that the overwhelming majority of individuals who make false statements under oath are not prosecuted;
2. that those who are prosecuted generally fall into some special category of culpability or are victims of selective prosecution; and,
3. that the false statements of which President Clinton is accused fall at the most marginal end of the least culpable genre of this continuum of offenses and would never even be considered for prosecution in the routine case involving an ordinary defendant.
II
My interest in the corrosive effects of perjury began in the early1970s when I represented — on a pro bono basis — a young man who was both a member of and a government informer against the Jewish Defense League. He was accused of making a bomb that caused the death of a woman, but he swore that a particular policeman, who had been assigned to be his handler, had made him certain promises in exchange for his information. The policeman categorically denied making any promises, but my client had — unbeknownst to the policeman — surreptitiously taped many of his conversations with the policeman. The tapes proved beyond any doubt that the policeman had committed repeated perjury, and all charges were dropped against my client. But the policeman was never charged with perjury. Instead he was promoted.[8]
The following year, I represented, on appeal, a lawyer accused of corruption. The major witness against him was a policeman who acknowledged at trial that he himself had committed three crimes while serving as a police officer. He denied that he had committed more than these three crimes. It was subsequently learned that he had, in fact, committed hundreds of additional crimes, including some he specifically denied under oath. He too was never prosecuted for perjury, because a young Assistant U.S. Attorney, named Rudolph Giuliani, led a campaign against prosecuting this admitted perjurer. Shortly afterward, the policeman explained:
Cops are almost taught how to commit perjury when they are in the Police Academy. Perjury to a policeman — and to a lawyer, by the way — is not a big deal. Whether they are giving out speeding tickets or parking tickets, they're almost always lying. But very few cops lie about the actual facts of a case. They may stretch an incident or whatever to fit it into the framework of the law based on what they consider a silly law of the Supreme Court.[9]
Nor is the evidence of police perjury merely anecdotal. Numerous commission reports have found rampant abuses in police departments throughout the country. All objective reports point to a pervasive problem of police lying, and tolerance of the lying by prosecutors and judges, all in the name of convicting the factually guilty whose rights may have been violated and whose convictions might be endangered by the exclusionary rule.
As the Mollen Commission reported:
The practice of police falsification in connection with such arrests is so common in certain precincts that it has spawned its own word: "testilying." . . . Officers also commit falsification to serve what they perceive to be "legitimate" law enforcement ends — and for ends that many honest and corrupt officers alike stubbornly defend as correct. In their view, regardless of the legality of the arrest, the defendant is in fact guilty and ought to be arrested.[10]
Even more troubling, in the Mollen Commission's view, "the evidence suggests that the . . . commanding officer not only tolerated, but encouraged, this unlawful practice." The commission provided several examples of perjured cover stories that had been suggested to a young officer by his supervisor:
Scenarios were, were you going to say (a) that you observed what appeared to be a drug transaction; (b) you observed a bulge in the defendant's waistband; or (c) you were informed by a male black, unidentified at this time, that at the location there were drug sales.
QUESTION: So, in other words, what the lieutenant was telling you is "Here's your choice of false predicates for the arrest."
OFFICER: That's correct. Pick which one you're going to use.[11]
Nor was this practice limited to police supervisors. As the Mollen Commission reported:
Several former and current prosecutors acknowledged — "off the record" — that perjury and falsification are serious problems in law enforcement that, though not condoned, are ignored. The form this tolerance takes, however, is subtle, which makes accountability in this area especially difficult.[12]
The epidemic is conceded even among the highest ranks of law enforcement. For example, William F. Bratton, who has headed the police departments of New York City and Boston, has confirmed that "testilying" is a "real problem that needs to be addressed." He also placed some of the responsibility squarely at the feet of prosecutors:
When a prosecutor is really determined to win, the trial prep procedure may skirt along the edge of coercing or leading the police witness. In this way, some impressionable young cops learn to tailor their testimony to the requirements of the law.[13]
Many judges who listen to or review police testimony on a regular basis privately agree with Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who publicly stated: "It is an open secret long shared by prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges that perjury is widespread among law enforcement officers," and that the reason for it is that "the exclusionary rule . . . sets up a great incentive for . . . police to lie to avoid letting someone they think is guilty, or they know is guilty, go free."[14] Or, as Judge Irving Younger explained, "Every lawyer who practices in the criminal courts knows that police perjury is commonplace."[15]
As these judges attest, this could not happen without active complicity of many prosecutors and judges. Yet there is little apparent concern to remedy that serious abuse of the oath to tell the truth — even among those who now claim to be so concerned with the corrosive influences of perjury on our legal system. The sad reality appears to be that most people care about perjury only when they disapprove of the substance of the lie or of the person who is lying.
A perfect example of selective morality regarding perjury occurred when President George Bush pardoned former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger in 1992, even though physical records proved that Weinberger had lied in connection with his testimony regarding knowledge of Iran arms sales. Not only was there no great outcry against pardoning an indicted perjurer, some of the same people who insist that President Clinton not be allowed to "get away" with lying were perfectly prepared to see Weinberger "get away" with perjury. Senator Bob Dole of Kansas spoke for many when he called the pardon a "Christmas Eve act of courage and compassion."[16]
The real issue is not the handful of convicted perjurers appearing before this committee, but the hundreds of thousands of perjurers who are never prosecuted, many for extremely serious and calculated acts of perjury designed to undercut constitutional rights of unpopular defendants.
If we really want to reduce the corrosive effects of perjury on our legal system, the place to begin is at or near the top of the perjury hierarchy. If instead we continue deliberately to blind ourselves to pervasive police perjury and other equally dangerous forms of lying under oath and focus on a politically charged tangential lie in the lowest category of possible perjury (hiding embarrassing facts only marginally relevant to a dismissed civil case), we would be reaffirming the dangerous message that perjury will continue to be a selectively prosecuted crime reserved for political or other agenda-driven purposes.
A Republican aide to this committee was quoted by The New York Times as follows:
"In the hearing, we'll be looking at perjury and its consequences, and whether it is tenable for a nation to have two different standards for lying under oath; one for the President and one for everyone else."[17]
On the basis of my research and experiences, I am convinced that if President Clinton were an ordinary citizen, he would not be prosecuted for his allegedly false statements, which were made in a civil deposition about a collateral sexual matter later found inadmissible in a case eventually dismissed and then settled. If President Clinton were ever to be prosecuted or impeached for perjury on the basis of the currently available evidence, it would indeed represent an improper double standard: a selectively harsher one for the president (and perhaps a handful of other victims of selective prosecution) and the usual laxer one for everyone else.
____________________
Notes
1. Jerome Frank, Courts On Trial 85 (1949).
2. Many such defendants now have years added on to their sentences under the federal guidelines, which add points for perjury at trial.
3. Joseph D. McNamara, Has the Drug War Created an Officer Liars' Club?, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 11, 1996, at M1.
4. From Mark Curriden, The Lies Have It, A.B.A. J., May 1995, at 71, quoted in Lisa C. Harris, Perjury Defeats Justice, 42 Wayne L. Rev. 1755, 1768-69 (1996) (footnote omitted). See also Hon.Sonia Sotomayor & Nicole A. Gordon, Returning Majesty to the Law and Politics: A Modern Approach, 30 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 35, 51 n.52 (1996) ("Perjury cases are not often pursued, and perhaps should be given greater consideration by prosecuting attorneys as a means of enhancing the credibility of the trial system generally."); Fred Cohen, Police Perjury: An Interview With Martin Garbus, 8 Crim. L. Bull. 363, 367 (1972), quoted in Christopher Slobogin, Testilying: Police Perjury and What to Do About It, 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1037, 1060 n.13 (1996) ("…no trial lawyer that I know will argue that police perjury is nonexistent or sporadic.")
5. Richard H. Underwood, Perjury: An Anthology, 13 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 307, 379 (1996).
House of Representatives Judiciary Committee
December 1, 1998
My name is Alan M. Dershowitz and I have been teaching criminal law at Harvard Law School for 35 years. I have also participated in the litigation — especially at the appellate level — of hundreds of federal and state cases, many of them involving perjury and the making of false statements. I have edited a casebook on criminal law and have written 10 books and hundreds of articles dealing with subjects relating to the issues before this committee. It is an honor to have been asked to share my experience and expertise with you all here today.
For nearly a quarter century, I have been teaching, lecturing and writing about the corrosive influences of perjury in our legal system, especially when committed by those whose job it is to enforce the law, and ignored — or even legitimized — by those whose responsibilities it is to check those who enforce the law.
On the basis of my academic and professional experience, I believe that no felony is committed more frequently in this country than the genre of perjury and false statements. Perjury during civil depositions and trials is so endemic that a respected appellate judge once observed that "experienced lawyers say that, in large cities, scarcely a trial occurs in which some witness does not lie." He quoted a wag to the effect that cases often are decided "according to the preponderance of perjury."[1] Filing false tax returns and other documents under pains and penalties of perjury is so rampant that everyone acknowledges that only a tiny fraction of offenders can be prosecuted. Making false statements to a law enforcement official is so commonplace that the Justice Department guidelines provide for prosecution of only some categories of this daily crime. Perjury at criminal trials is so common that whenever a defendant testifies and is found guilty, he has presumptively committed perjury.[2] Police perjury in criminal cases — particularly in the context of searches and other exclusionary rule issues — is so pervasive that the former police chief of San Jose and Kansas City has estimated that "hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests" alone.[3]
In comparison with their frequency, it is likely that false statement crimes are among the most underprosecuted in this country. Though state and federal statutes carry stringent penalties for perjury, few perjurers ever actually are subjected to those penalties. As prosecutor E. Michael McCann has concluded, "Outside of income tax evasion, perjury is…probably the most underprosecuted crime in America."[4] Moreover, there is evidence that false statements are among the most selectively prosecuted of all crimes, and that the criteria for selectivity bears little relationship to the willfulness or frequency of the lies, the certainty of the evidence or any other neutral criteria relating to the elements of perjury or other false statement crimes. Professor Richard H. Underwood, the Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky's law school, writes that:
more often, the [perjury] law has been invoked for revenge, or for the purpose of realizing some political end (the very base reason that lies are sometimes told!), or for the purpose of nabbing a criminal who might otherwise be difficult to nab, or, dare I say it, for the purpose of gaining some tactical advantage. Proving that perjury was committed, or that a "false statement" or a "false claim" was made, may be an easier, or a more palatable, brief for the prosecution.[5]
Historically, false statements generally have admitted of considerable variations in degree.[6] The core concept of perjury was that of "bearing false witness," a biblical term that consisted in accusing another of crime.[7]
Clearly, the most heinous brand of lying is the giving of false testimony that results in the imprisonment or even execution of an innocent person. Less egregious, but still quite serious, is false testimony that results in the conviction of a person who committed the criminal conduct, but whose rights were violated in a manner that would preclude conviction if the police were to testify truthfully. There are many other points on this continuum, ranging from making false statements about income or expenses to testifying falsely in civil trials. The least culpable genre of false statements are those that deny embarrassing personal conduct of marginal relevance to the matter at issue in the legal proceeding.
Much of the public debate about President Clinton and possible perjury appears to ignore the following important lessons of history:
1. that the overwhelming majority of individuals who make false statements under oath are not prosecuted;
2. that those who are prosecuted generally fall into some special category of culpability or are victims of selective prosecution; and,
3. that the false statements of which President Clinton is accused fall at the most marginal end of the least culpable genre of this continuum of offenses and would never even be considered for prosecution in the routine case involving an ordinary defendant.
II
My interest in the corrosive effects of perjury began in the early1970s when I represented — on a pro bono basis — a young man who was both a member of and a government informer against the Jewish Defense League. He was accused of making a bomb that caused the death of a woman, but he swore that a particular policeman, who had been assigned to be his handler, had made him certain promises in exchange for his information. The policeman categorically denied making any promises, but my client had — unbeknownst to the policeman — surreptitiously taped many of his conversations with the policeman. The tapes proved beyond any doubt that the policeman had committed repeated perjury, and all charges were dropped against my client. But the policeman was never charged with perjury. Instead he was promoted.[8]
The following year, I represented, on appeal, a lawyer accused of corruption. The major witness against him was a policeman who acknowledged at trial that he himself had committed three crimes while serving as a police officer. He denied that he had committed more than these three crimes. It was subsequently learned that he had, in fact, committed hundreds of additional crimes, including some he specifically denied under oath. He too was never prosecuted for perjury, because a young Assistant U.S. Attorney, named Rudolph Giuliani, led a campaign against prosecuting this admitted perjurer. Shortly afterward, the policeman explained:
Cops are almost taught how to commit perjury when they are in the Police Academy. Perjury to a policeman — and to a lawyer, by the way — is not a big deal. Whether they are giving out speeding tickets or parking tickets, they're almost always lying. But very few cops lie about the actual facts of a case. They may stretch an incident or whatever to fit it into the framework of the law based on what they consider a silly law of the Supreme Court.[9]
Nor is the evidence of police perjury merely anecdotal. Numerous commission reports have found rampant abuses in police departments throughout the country. All objective reports point to a pervasive problem of police lying, and tolerance of the lying by prosecutors and judges, all in the name of convicting the factually guilty whose rights may have been violated and whose convictions might be endangered by the exclusionary rule.
As the Mollen Commission reported:
The practice of police falsification in connection with such arrests is so common in certain precincts that it has spawned its own word: "testilying." . . . Officers also commit falsification to serve what they perceive to be "legitimate" law enforcement ends — and for ends that many honest and corrupt officers alike stubbornly defend as correct. In their view, regardless of the legality of the arrest, the defendant is in fact guilty and ought to be arrested.[10]
Even more troubling, in the Mollen Commission's view, "the evidence suggests that the . . . commanding officer not only tolerated, but encouraged, this unlawful practice." The commission provided several examples of perjured cover stories that had been suggested to a young officer by his supervisor:
Scenarios were, were you going to say (a) that you observed what appeared to be a drug transaction; (b) you observed a bulge in the defendant's waistband; or (c) you were informed by a male black, unidentified at this time, that at the location there were drug sales.
QUESTION: So, in other words, what the lieutenant was telling you is "Here's your choice of false predicates for the arrest."
OFFICER: That's correct. Pick which one you're going to use.[11]
Nor was this practice limited to police supervisors. As the Mollen Commission reported:
Several former and current prosecutors acknowledged — "off the record" — that perjury and falsification are serious problems in law enforcement that, though not condoned, are ignored. The form this tolerance takes, however, is subtle, which makes accountability in this area especially difficult.[12]
The epidemic is conceded even among the highest ranks of law enforcement. For example, William F. Bratton, who has headed the police departments of New York City and Boston, has confirmed that "testilying" is a "real problem that needs to be addressed." He also placed some of the responsibility squarely at the feet of prosecutors:
When a prosecutor is really determined to win, the trial prep procedure may skirt along the edge of coercing or leading the police witness. In this way, some impressionable young cops learn to tailor their testimony to the requirements of the law.[13]
Many judges who listen to or review police testimony on a regular basis privately agree with Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who publicly stated: "It is an open secret long shared by prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges that perjury is widespread among law enforcement officers," and that the reason for it is that "the exclusionary rule . . . sets up a great incentive for . . . police to lie to avoid letting someone they think is guilty, or they know is guilty, go free."[14] Or, as Judge Irving Younger explained, "Every lawyer who practices in the criminal courts knows that police perjury is commonplace."[15]
As these judges attest, this could not happen without active complicity of many prosecutors and judges. Yet there is little apparent concern to remedy that serious abuse of the oath to tell the truth — even among those who now claim to be so concerned with the corrosive influences of perjury on our legal system. The sad reality appears to be that most people care about perjury only when they disapprove of the substance of the lie or of the person who is lying.
A perfect example of selective morality regarding perjury occurred when President George Bush pardoned former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger in 1992, even though physical records proved that Weinberger had lied in connection with his testimony regarding knowledge of Iran arms sales. Not only was there no great outcry against pardoning an indicted perjurer, some of the same people who insist that President Clinton not be allowed to "get away" with lying were perfectly prepared to see Weinberger "get away" with perjury. Senator Bob Dole of Kansas spoke for many when he called the pardon a "Christmas Eve act of courage and compassion."[16]
The real issue is not the handful of convicted perjurers appearing before this committee, but the hundreds of thousands of perjurers who are never prosecuted, many for extremely serious and calculated acts of perjury designed to undercut constitutional rights of unpopular defendants.
If we really want to reduce the corrosive effects of perjury on our legal system, the place to begin is at or near the top of the perjury hierarchy. If instead we continue deliberately to blind ourselves to pervasive police perjury and other equally dangerous forms of lying under oath and focus on a politically charged tangential lie in the lowest category of possible perjury (hiding embarrassing facts only marginally relevant to a dismissed civil case), we would be reaffirming the dangerous message that perjury will continue to be a selectively prosecuted crime reserved for political or other agenda-driven purposes.
A Republican aide to this committee was quoted by The New York Times as follows:
"In the hearing, we'll be looking at perjury and its consequences, and whether it is tenable for a nation to have two different standards for lying under oath; one for the President and one for everyone else."[17]
On the basis of my research and experiences, I am convinced that if President Clinton were an ordinary citizen, he would not be prosecuted for his allegedly false statements, which were made in a civil deposition about a collateral sexual matter later found inadmissible in a case eventually dismissed and then settled. If President Clinton were ever to be prosecuted or impeached for perjury on the basis of the currently available evidence, it would indeed represent an improper double standard: a selectively harsher one for the president (and perhaps a handful of other victims of selective prosecution) and the usual laxer one for everyone else.
____________________
Notes
1. Jerome Frank, Courts On Trial 85 (1949).
2. Many such defendants now have years added on to their sentences under the federal guidelines, which add points for perjury at trial.
3. Joseph D. McNamara, Has the Drug War Created an Officer Liars' Club?, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 11, 1996, at M1.
4. From Mark Curriden, The Lies Have It, A.B.A. J., May 1995, at 71, quoted in Lisa C. Harris, Perjury Defeats Justice, 42 Wayne L. Rev. 1755, 1768-69 (1996) (footnote omitted). See also Hon.Sonia Sotomayor & Nicole A. Gordon, Returning Majesty to the Law and Politics: A Modern Approach, 30 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 35, 51 n.52 (1996) ("Perjury cases are not often pursued, and perhaps should be given greater consideration by prosecuting attorneys as a means of enhancing the credibility of the trial system generally."); Fred Cohen, Police Perjury: An Interview With Martin Garbus, 8 Crim. L. Bull. 363, 367 (1972), quoted in Christopher Slobogin, Testilying: Police Perjury and What to Do About It, 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1037, 1060 n.13 (1996) ("…no trial lawyer that I know will argue that police perjury is nonexistent or sporadic.")
5. Richard H. Underwood, Perjury: An Anthology, 13 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 307, 379 (1996).
6. See, e.g., Richard H. Underwood, False Witness: A Lawyer's History of the Law of Perjury, 10 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 215,252 n.157 (1993).
7. See, e.g., Underwood, id. at 223 and accompanying note 37.
8. See Dershowitz, The Best Defense 67 (1982). The chief of detectives of New York wrote a book about this case in which he confirmed these facts. See Albert Seedman, Chief! (1974).
9. See Dershowitz, The Best Defense, supra note 8, at 377. This was confirmed in a book entitled Prince of the City (and a motion picture of the same name), whose contents were approved by the policeman. See Robert Daley, Prince of the City (1978).
10. Commission to Investigate Allegations of Police Corruption and the Anti-Corruption Practices of the Police Department, Milton Mollen, Chair; July 7, 1994, at 36 [hereinafter Mollen Report]. The report then went on to describe how officers reported a litany of manufactured tales. For example, when officers unlawfully stop and search a vehicle because they believe it contains drugs or guns, officers will falsely claim in police reports and under oath that the car ran a red light (or committed some other traffic violation) and that they subsequently saw contraband in the car in plain view. To conceal an unlawful search of an individual who officers believe is carrying drugs or a gun, they will falsely assert that they saw a bulge in the person's pocket or saw drugs and money changing hands. To justify unlawfully entering an apartment where officers believe narcotics or cash can be found, they pretend to have information from an unidentified civilian informant. Id. at 38.
11. Mollen Report, supra note 10, at 41.
12. Mollen Report, supra note 10, at 42.
13. Boston Globe, November 15, 1995, at 1.
14. Stuart Taylor, Jr., For the Record, American Lawyer, Oct. 1995, at 72.
15. Irving Younger, The Perjury Routine, The Nation, May 8, 1967, at 596-97.
16. Elaine Sciolino, On the Question of Pardons, Dole has Taken Both Sides, The New York Times, 16 Oct. 1996, at A15.
17. Eric Schmitt, Panel Considers Perjury and Its Consequences, The New York Times, Nov. 28, 1998, at A13.
Source: www.constitution.org/lrev/dershowitz_test_981201.txt
Friday, February 2, 2007
Thoughts & Feelings Concerning the Murder of Rick Tetzlaff
by Efren Paredes, Jr.
News of Rick's Death
I first heard about the death of Rick Tetzlaff the morning following his murder at Vineland Foods. I learned about his death from a police officer named Dennis Padgett who was investigating the crime. It was Padgett's job to interview people who worked with Rick at Vineland Foods the evening he was murdered in search of information that may help solve the crime.
I was one of several people who worked with Rick the evening of his unfortunate death, Wednesday, March 8, 1989. I also received a ride home from him that night after work. Rick did this as a favor to my family and me because I stayed longer to work that evening to sort bottles at his request. Business at the store had been very busy that day due to it being double coupon day and I was unable to finish all my job duties at the regular time.
I was not scheduled to work at Vineland Foods that day. The only reason I did work was because Rick called me at home that afternoon and asked me to. One of the other grocery baggers hurt himself and they needed someone to work in his stead. I was the person who Rick asked to work. I was probably the person Rick chose to call because I was always willing to work extra days if I was not going to be participating in school-related activities that afternoon/evening.
The news of Rick's death stunned me. I was initially in disbelief because I had just worked with, spoken to, and received a ride home from Rick the previous evening. I was awakened early by Officer Padgett's call to our home that morning telling me of Rick's death the night before. Minutes after the phone call he arrived at our home to ask me if I saw anything suspicious at the store that evening or knew anything about what may have occurred.
After realizing both the reality and gravity of what Officer Padgett told me regarding Rick's death I remember thinking to myself, "That could have been me murdered that night. What if the crime had occurred while I was present. I, too, could have been killed." These were recurring thoughts I had. I recall that thought overwhelming me one night. I cried because it seemed that no one other than me could really relate to this.
I dismissed these thoughts by reasoning that people did not experience the same things I did. They did not work with Rick the evening he was murdered. They did not receive a ride home from him that night. They did not hear him say, "I'll see you tomorrow."
I also did not want to be perceived as acting like a child. I did not receive counseling and no one asked me if I wanted to visit a counselor. I later learned that school officials were asked to watch me and other students from the school who were rumored to be involved in the Vineland Foods crime soon after the crime occurred (i.e., Eric Mui, Alex Mui, Jason Williamson, and Steve Miller). They were also made aware that I worked at Vineland Foods the night of the murder. Despite having this information school officials recklessly and irresponsibly made no effort to offer me counseling or see if I needed any help.
As a consequence of no one being concerned if I received counseling or dealing with the traumatic experience of believing that I had possibly just escaped death the night Rick was murdered, my natural 15-year-old mentality at the time was, "Maybe what I am feeling and thinking is abnormal. Get over it."
Thoughts About Rick
Rick was a genuinely good person. He was always kind and respectful, and I viewed him as a positive role model. He always treated me fairly and did not treat me any differently because I was the only minority employed at Vineland Foods, or the fact that I was the youngest employee there. Of the three managers I interacted with at Vineland Foods, to me Rick was the most professional and easiest to communicate with. When I had questions about my work schedule or complaints I felt most comfortable discussing them with him as opposed to others.
We both played soccer and often joked about playing against each other one day. Rick attended Indiana University. It was my dream to one day attend Notre Dame University to study law. I recall how proud Rick was to wear an Indiana University ring he owned. The reason I remember this particularly well is that the ring served as a constant reminder to me that if I continued to do well in school and sports I, too, could one day proudly wear a similar ring from the college I attended.
I often discussed my school activities with Rick because at times I had to ask for my schedule to be adjusted to accommodate certain school or sports activities. He was always supportive of me and arranged my work schedule so my work and school activities did not conflict with each other. Rick encouraged me to do well in school and strive to be successful.
I remember occasionally talking to Rick about girls I liked at school or was communicating with. I would ask him things that normal teenagers would ask an older male about relationships with girls my age and he would give me feedback to questions I presented. If I had a problem or wanted advice about a subject I could go to Rick for assistance. I can not recall one occasion that Rick ever refused to assist me when I asked, if he was able to do so.
It was these qualities about Rick that frequently made me revisit the question, "Why did someone (or more than one person) murder Rick?" He never told me he was having problems with anyone, nor did he give me any reason to believe that anything in his life had escalated to the point of violence. Rick was not a violent person. He was able to diffuse potentially volatile situations and he was a good communicator. I could not imagine why someone would heinously murder him. Rick had a family and I know he did not do anything to anyone to warrant being robbed of his life and family like he was. It was a senseless, unjustifiable murder.
Heart Goes Out to Rick's Family
I felt terrible for Rick's family about his death and still do. They lost a wonderful son, brother, husband, and father for no reason. I will never be able to fully grasp or imagine the pain they endured at the time of his death, or the pain they continue to suffer as a consequence. I prayed for their family then and I continue to do so regularly. I pray that God bless them with comfort and the strength to cope with Rick's tragic loss.
When I was arrested and accused of Rick's death I was amazed that someone would believe I was guilty of committing his murder. What disturbed me the most was people's eagerness to vilify me and say false and hurtful things about me. It was as if they wanted me to be guilty. They sought to transform me from an honor student, athlete, and good worker into the inversion of each. I would be lied about in the media, and then I would subsequently be convicted twice; first in the court of public opinion, next in a court of law.
One of the things that was the subject of much adverse criticism was the fact that I showed little or no emotion during court proceedings. The media wrote about this, my preliminary examination and trial judges both referenced it, the prosecutor spoke about it, and Rick's family wrote about it in their victim impact statements.
What no one knew at the time was that my trial attorney, Andrew Burch, expressly instructed me not to show emotion during court proceedings. His rationale for this was that if people saw me show emotion it could be mis-perceived and interpreted negatively. It became clear after my conviction that hiding my emotions of fear, mental anguish, anger, and confusion about what was taking place was detrimental to my case.
Unfortunately by then it was too late to correct the damage done.
Sixteen years after my conviction Burch wrote a letter admitting that he instructed me to exhibit no emotion during court proceedings. He also admitted that this strategy had an adverse affect on my trial. That letter is available for viewing upon request.
At the sentencing phase of my trial, judge Zoe Burkholz read impact statements written by Rick's family. The letters contained harsh statements about me, and they requested I receive the most severe punishment allowed by the law — life in prison.
Despite these letters to the court I never became angry with Rick's family. I knew they were experiencing deep pain and I sympathized with them. I knew they were provided false and misleading information about me by the police and prosecutor. I also knew they were being barraged by incessant adverse media coverage.
The Principles of Righteousness
I will continue to pray for Rick and his family. I will persist asking that God bless Rick's family with peace of mind and the strength to be well. I will also continue to ask that people respect their privacy and not do anything to cause them discomfort.
Rick's family wanted justice to be done, and they thought justice was done. Unfortunately it was not. They were presented a semblance of justice that turned out to be a miscarriage of justice.
Sincere believers in Christ must earnestly seek to live their lives in a manner that is pleasing to God. This implies that we must incorporate God's laws and words into our daily lives. "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified." (Holy Bible, Romans 2:13) I am obliged to strive to become one with God. I endeavor to do that daily and also work to inspire others to do so as well.
To act against the will of God is tantamount to rejecting God. I will not stray from the path of righteousness, nor will I compromise my faith. Although I have lost 17 years of my life as a consequence of an egregious case of injustice, and received an onslaught of vicious verbal attacks, I remain committed to the reality that God will never forsake the faithful. I believe that justice in my case will one day be served.
My faith continues to be tested in great measure. I will, however, remain steadfast in my faith and not be overcome by unrighteousness. The tests I continue to endure continue to draw me closer towards God each day. This will remain constant.
I am a firm believer in God and what the Bible instructs concerning mercy, judging others, and speaking evil against others.
"Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others, for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself[.]" (Holy Bible, Romans 2:1)
"Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get." (Holy Bible, Matthew 7:1-2)
"For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment." (Holy Bible, James 2:13)
"Do not speak evil against one another, brothers and sisters. Whoever speaks evil against another or judges another, speaks evil against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. So who, then, are you to judge your neighbor?" (Holy Bible, James 4:11-12)
I have never, nor will I ever, be angry with, or express ill feelings toward Rick's family. "[A]nger does not produce God's righteousness." (Holy Bible, James 1:20) I forgave them then for their words against me and I continue to forgive them.
"For if you forgive others their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Holy Bible, Matthew 6:14-15)
"Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses." (Holy Bible, Mark 11:25)
The failure to forgive others is a form of self-righteousness. It is a sin itself, and until others are forgiven, we will not be forgiven. We deprive ourselves of blessings from God when we employ a callous, recalcitrant attitude towards other human beings. Jesus said, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you[.]" (Holy Bible, Matthew 7:12) This is such an important commandment that he added, "this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
(This writing was authored by Efren Paredes, Jr. on Easter Sunday, April 16, 2006.)
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
A Man Is Born; Poem by Rosh Holmes
This poem is dedicated to Efren Paredes, Jr. I wish him all the very best as he earnestly works to effectuate justice in the face of strong opposition. Please stand by Efren, his family and supporters, and voice strong opposition against the terrible injustice that has robbed him of freedom for more than half of his life. —Rosh Holmes
A Man Is Born
by Rosh Holmes
A man is born when a child is faced,
With grave and frightful scares.
When a child is placed within such states,
As waste and sheer despair.
A man is born when a son's bright glow,
Is hidden by the clouds.
When earthquakes shake,
Through thunder's hate,
And the son is left to fate.
A man is born in adolescent years,
When betrayal dries his tears.
When a boy is cast amongst the wolves,
And raised by scorn and jeers.
I'll tell you when a man is born,
Grant me an open ear.
When a child is left to strange device,
Abandoned by his peers.
A man is born from juveniles,
Thrown in the depths of hell.
Systems devoid compassion's touch,
And dank, walled prison cells.
Some men are born before their time,
Conceived by blinding pain.
Still some are born when left to drown,
In pools of the insane.
Some men are born by a kiss of rage,
When tossed into a cage.
Others are born through fog and haze,
Brought on by Prison Daze.
I'll tell you when some men are born,
Grant me another ear.
A man is born from cries for right,
Made where none are to hear.
I bless you with these truthful verse,
These words we all should mourn,
When a son's bright light is stifled and,
Premature,
A man is born.
A Man Is Born
by Rosh Holmes
A man is born when a child is faced,
With grave and frightful scares.
When a child is placed within such states,
As waste and sheer despair.
A man is born when a son's bright glow,
Is hidden by the clouds.
When earthquakes shake,
Through thunder's hate,
And the son is left to fate.
A man is born in adolescent years,
When betrayal dries his tears.
When a boy is cast amongst the wolves,
And raised by scorn and jeers.
I'll tell you when a man is born,
Grant me an open ear.
When a child is left to strange device,
Abandoned by his peers.
A man is born from juveniles,
Thrown in the depths of hell.
Systems devoid compassion's touch,
And dank, walled prison cells.
Some men are born before their time,
Conceived by blinding pain.
Still some are born when left to drown,
In pools of the insane.
Some men are born by a kiss of rage,
When tossed into a cage.
Others are born through fog and haze,
Brought on by Prison Daze.
I'll tell you when some men are born,
Grant me another ear.
A man is born from cries for right,
Made where none are to hear.
I bless you with these truthful verse,
These words we all should mourn,
When a son's bright light is stifled and,
Premature,
A man is born.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)