To Free the Truth

In light of these fundamental violations of the Constitution, the Texas Rules of Evidence, and the trial court’s pretrial discovery order, Pruett’s conviction should be set aside

   –Judge Joel Johnson to the Criminal Court of Appeals

The law requires jurors to presume a criminal defendant innocent until the state proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense attorneys are explicit in their explanation of this law, and every member of the jury swears to follow it, but how many honestly do? Think about it. On one side of a courtroom you have what many believe to be the noble prosecutors, dressed in expensive suits that exude authority. These are the defenders of justice, hard at work fighting crime. Now, look over at the defendant typically dressed in cheap street clothes, if not prison garb, who has been charged with a crime. I believe a lot of jurors start out thinking the defendant and his lawyer are the bad guys while the prosecutors and their team are the good guys. These jurors-honestly hardworking Joes and Janes-naturally wonder why the good guys would hall the bad guy in here, spend all the money to take him/her to trial, if they weren’t sure he or she is guilty. No doubt about it, the burden of proof quickly shifts to the defense. It’s no longer innocent until proven guilty in a courtroom once the trial commences; despite your Constitutionally guaranteed rights, you are guilty until you prove your innocence whenever you’re in that defendant’s chair. 

My case is a perfect example. In fact, I was even further behind the 8-ball than most. I’d already been convicted of murder once, which the jury learned by the reading of my indictment prior to opening arguments. They heard this on that indictment because the circumstances which caused the case to be capital was my being in prison for murder already–a conviction I was not allowed to expand on. The jury never heard that I was convicted under the law of parties for a crime committed by my father.  So, there I am, a convicted murderer in prison charged with killing a guard. Oh, being covered in tattoos didn’t help perceptions either. You don’t think that jury wanted me to prove I was innocent?

Sadly, my prosecutors not only exploited this advantage, they illegally obtained a conviction by not playing by the rules. Judge Joel Johnson granted a “discovery of evidence” order during pretrial hearings. Basically, the state was required to give my lawyers names and statements of all witnesses against me so I could prepare a defense. Judge Johnson had something come up, though, and traveling judge J. Villareal tried the case. Judge Villareal let the prosecution get away with anything and everything including violating the discovery of evidence order of Judge Johnson which still applied to my case. During the rebuttal phase of trial, the prosecution sprung the testimony of witnesses Michael Hall and Michael Ross on me. Both of whom said I confessed to them. My lawyers had no way to prepare for the lies of Hall and Ross because they had no statements by these inmates. We asked the judge by statements from these inmates, but the prosecution claimed there weren’t any.

    ”What are the papers you are referring to, then?” my lawyers demanded.

    ”Notes by an investigator, not statements, ” prosecutors said. 

Judge Villareal looked at the “notes” and decided they weren’t statements and not subject to disclosure under the order of discovery. 

During a post-conviction hearing, Judge Johnson was made aware of all of this. He reviewed the notes compiled by the state’s investigator on Hall and Ross. Under the Texas Rules of Evidence, he said they clearly constitute witness statements and handed them over to my attorneys. These “notes” were clearly inconsistent with the Hall and Ross’ testimony. Judge Johnson concluded that the prosecutors had committed prosecutorial misconduct. In his Proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, he wrote, “The accused has the right to inspect evidence material to his defense. The court has authority to make such evidence discoverable and did in this cause…The state acted in bad faith in withholding the information on Hall and Ross, deliberately disregarding the Court’s order to obtain an advantage. The trial court (Judge Villareal) abused its discretion in allowing the testimony of Hall and Ross…The prosecution had in its possession detailed summaries of interviews with Hall and Ross–these consitute witness statements under 615f (2) Rules of Evidence. These witness statements contain inconsistencies with trial testimony. The failure of the court to compel production harmed Pruett, violating his Constitutional right to confront his accusers.”

Is it not enough that presumption of innocence is a myth, that the burden of proof shifts to a criminal defendant and he or she must prove innocence? I guess not in my case. Prosecutorial misconduct should lead to that prosecutor being disbarred. Maybe that would make district attorneys think twice about cheating to win a conviction. Defenders of law and order and justice? Please. Prosecutors look at convictions at notches in their belts; I doubt most care how they get them.