Monday, October 6, 2008
UNDERMINED TRUTH DETERMINING PROCESS
Trial counsel, Prosecutor, and Trial Judge so undermined the truth determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
TRIAL COUNSEL WAS COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE
Ok now I will cover all grounds raised in petition that pertain to trial counsel Rob Donatoni's ineffective assistance of counsel.
Trial counsel was ineffective for
1.) failure to humanize defendant
2.) failed to disclose conflict of interest
3.) failed to call defense witnesses to rebut or corroborate
4.) failed to call character witnesses
5.) failed to do pretrial discovery
6.) failed to properly cross examine commonwealth witnesses while allowing prosecution to lead
7.) failure to impeach commonwealth witnesses
8.) failure to request corrupt and polluted source charge
9.) allowing introduction of highly prejudicial and bloody, gory, inflammatory photographs and video that served no probative value what so ever
10.) suggesting to jury that defendant was guilty of third degree murder
11.) failing to point out to jury there was no evidence of shared intent
12.) allowing prosecutor to coach witnesses to give perjured testimony
13.) failure to inform jury defendants crimes committed as a juvenile were minor
14.) failure to correct prosecutors suggestion of defective priors
15.) introducing defective priors directing a verdict of guilt, by suggesting incompetent, damaging, false evidence that filled the prosecutors gaps
16.) failure to object to crucial misstatements of evidence made by prosecutor in summation
17. ) failing to object to trial judges confusing, incomplete instruction on robbery, and accomplice co-conspirator charge
18.) incompetent summation
19.) failure to act when circumstances suggested an unseeming desire by trial judge to rush a resolution
20.) failure to move for a mistrial when prosecutor used perjured testimony to obtain a conviction
None of the incompetent tactics could have been the result of any rational or strategic tactical decision by trial counsel, and appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these issues
Trial counsel was ineffective for
1.) failure to humanize defendant
2.) failed to disclose conflict of interest
3.) failed to call defense witnesses to rebut or corroborate
4.) failed to call character witnesses
5.) failed to do pretrial discovery
6.) failed to properly cross examine commonwealth witnesses while allowing prosecution to lead
7.) failure to impeach commonwealth witnesses
8.) failure to request corrupt and polluted source charge
9.) allowing introduction of highly prejudicial and bloody, gory, inflammatory photographs and video that served no probative value what so ever
10.) suggesting to jury that defendant was guilty of third degree murder
11.) failing to point out to jury there was no evidence of shared intent
12.) allowing prosecutor to coach witnesses to give perjured testimony
13.) failure to inform jury defendants crimes committed as a juvenile were minor
14.) failure to correct prosecutors suggestion of defective priors
15.) introducing defective priors directing a verdict of guilt, by suggesting incompetent, damaging, false evidence that filled the prosecutors gaps
16.) failure to object to crucial misstatements of evidence made by prosecutor in summation
17. ) failing to object to trial judges confusing, incomplete instruction on robbery, and accomplice co-conspirator charge
18.) incompetent summation
19.) failure to act when circumstances suggested an unseeming desire by trial judge to rush a resolution
20.) failure to move for a mistrial when prosecutor used perjured testimony to obtain a conviction
None of the incompetent tactics could have been the result of any rational or strategic tactical decision by trial counsel, and appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these issues
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
