Follow by Email

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Violations In Amber's Case

1}Petitioner's conviction was obtained as the result of ineffectiveness of counsel at trial:> Case Authority:(Strickland V. Washington 466 U.S. 688(1984))
Ground 1}Petitioner's conviction was obtained by the result of ineffectiveness of counsel at trial; As guaranteed by the Constriction and 5 Th and Fourteenth and Sixth Amendments thereto.

2} The prosecution suppressed evidence favorable to the petitioner.
Due process: (Case Authority) Brady V. Maryland 373 U.S. 83(1963)
The DA Did not tell jurors about the rape. Nor the assault by Harris against Riley;
The Prosecutor failed to tell the judge or jury that witness Elizabeth Jackson ( Harris's Mother) Changed her statements repeatedly:

15}The petitioner was denied the opportunity to effectively confront and cross examine witnesses against her: ( Case Authority) Pointer V. Texas 380 U.S.400(1965)
16}The Prosecution in bad faith failed to collect (preserve) evidence potentially favorable to the defense:
Due Process :( Case In Authority Arizona V. Youngblood 488 U.S. 51 (1988)

22}There was a total failure to give jury instructions on every element of the offense:
Due Process: Case Authority:(Sullivan V. Louisiana 508 U.S. 275(1993)
Note>( Amber has noted: DA Karen Khim stressed over & over that Amber was aiding & abeting: That that was the issue? That was not the charge>?)

23} The Prosecutor deliberately misled the defense about evidence it intended to introduce (theory on which the defendant was charged): DUE PROCESS:
Case Authority ( Grey V. Netherlands 516 U.S. 152(1991)

24}Petitioner's conviction was obtained on the basis of state court errors that denied petitioner a fair trial: DUE PROCESS:
Case Authority: (Estelle V. Mcguire 502 U.S. 62 (1991)

28}Petitioner was denied discovery of confidential records that were ,material and pertinent to the defense. : Defense Attorney told Amber she could not have the rape reports) DUE PROCESS:
Case Authority:( Pennsylvania V. Ritchie 480 U.S. 39 (1987)

29Petitioner was convicted of murder without the court having instructed the jury that it could not convict of murder if it is found that Petitioner had a Miligating mental state: DUE PROCESS:
Case Authority: Sawyer V. Smith 497 U.S. 227 (1990)

32}The Prosecution Suppressed evidence favorable to the petitioner:

37}petitioner was the victim of vindictive Prosecution(Da Karen khim ) Made her case and closing by stating her opinion over & over about Amber being evil and commits about her attitude: etc DUE PROCESS:
Case Authority: U.S. V, Armstrong 517 U.S. 456 (1966)

42}Petitioner's conviction was the result of cumulative errors of counsel, i.e,errors that although not prejudicial individually, are cumulatively prejudicial:
DUE PROCESS: Effective Assistance of Counsel:
Case Authority: Mak V. Blodgett 970 F.2d 614(9 th Cir.1992) applying Strickland V. Washington 466 (1987)

43}Petitioner was denied the right to testify by council: Defense told her not take the stand: Advised her to waive that right: DUE PROCESS:
Case Authority: Rock V. Arkansas 483 U.S. 44 (1987)

47}Petitioner's conviction was upheld despite constitutional error the prejudicial effect of which was not measured by the reasonable doubt standard:
Case authority: Chapman V. California 318 U.S. 18 (1967)

50}The court denied petitioner right to a speedy trial( advised by public defender to waive no defense given: DUE PROCESS:
Case Authority: Klopfer V, North Carolina 386 U.S. 213 91967)

52}Petitioner's confession obtained by psychological coercion:
Case Authority: Ashcraft V. Tennessee 322 U.S. 143 91944)

55} Petitoner was subjected to unreasonable and excessive security at trial-or forced to appear in jail clothes: She had to wear Leg Chains:
Case Authority: Holbrook V. Flynn 475 U.S. 560 (1986) --Estelle V. Williams 425 U.S,
501 (1976)

55}Petitioner is indigent was denied funds necessary to employ expert witness to counter the prosecution's expert. Or hire an investigator : DUE PROCESS:
Case Authority: Ake V. Oklahoma 470 U.S.. 68 (1968)

19}The court refused to ask sufficient questions of jurers on basis: A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY
Case Authority: Turner V. Murray 476 U.S. 28 (1986)

60} Jurors gave false answers during voir dire or covered up false statements)
Note: Several Jurors admitted to reading about the case: Jurors admitted they could not be fair : FAIR AND IMPARTICAL JURY:
Case Authority: irwin V. Dowd 366 U.S. 717 (1961)

61} Prosecutor knowingly used perjured testimony or failed to correct known false testimony: To obtain petitioners conviction Elizabeth Jackson : A FAIR TRIAL:
Case Authority: U.S. V. Bagley 473 U.S. 667 91985)----NapueV. Illinois 360 U.S. 360 U.S. 264 91959)
Petitioner denied the right to challenge a judge's erroneous refusal to dismiss a juror for cause on the basis that petitioner had not used a preemptory challenge to do so: ( Again INEFFECTIVE COUNSIL) Petitioner's Defense did not take care of this:
A FAIR TRIAL: AND IMPARTIAL JURY: ( Case Authority: United States V. Martinez Salazar 528 U.S. 304 (2000)

64}Prosecutorial Misconduct: Deprived Petitioner Of her Constitutional rights:
A FAIR TRIAL: Case Authority: Darden V. Wainwright 477 U.S. 168 (1991)

63}The Court gave jury instructions that lightened the prosecution's burden of proof: Aiding And Abetting: A FAIR TRIAL: Case Authority: Yares V. Evatt 500 U.S. 391 (1991)

64} Petitioner's conviction was obtained on the basis of the untested confession of an accomplice: A FAIR TRIAL Case Authority: Lilly V. Virgina 527 U.S. 116 (1999)

69}Petitioner was convicted on less then proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the charged crime: ( records show proof of duress, mental issues, PTSD and was in shock upon entering juvenile hall:
DUE PROCESS: Case Authority: In re Winship 397 U.S. 358 (1970)

73} Petitioner was convicted on basis of conduct committed under duress ( as well as grounded fear of immediate death or serious bodily injury with no reasonable course of action other then to violate the law: DUE PROCESS:
Case Authority: U.S. V. Baily 444 U.S. 394 (1980)

72}Petitioner was convicted on the basis of outrageous governmental misconduct( Coercion and lying about the statements) Case Authority: U.S. V. Russell 411 U.S. 423 (1973)

73} Petitioner was convicted on the basis of governmental entrapment : DUE PROCESS: Case Authority: Sorrells V. U.S. 287 U.S. 435 91932)

76.>Petitioner was denied the right to present a defense;
or the right to present defense witnesses ; or the defenses version of the facts.
(Attorney told petitioner that he was calling numerous witnesses for the defense, Did not call any at trial)
Fair trial right:
Case: Chambers V. Mississippi, 410 US 284 (1992)

81}petitioner was convicted for conduct which constitutionally-protected speech (She had told friend she wanted to see a dead body)
freedom Of Speech Right:
case; Near V. Minnesota, 283 US 697 (1931)

82}Petitioner was convicted on basis of conduct which constituted protected freedom of association: ( Co-defendant) "She says I did not share similar believes, styles, actions etc"
Freedom Of Association:
Case: NAACP V. Alabama 357 US 449 (1958)

86}Petitioner was convicted as the result of police interrogation conducted without counsel being present and following petitioners request for counsel in the context of a separate investigation.
(Due Process, Freedom vs. self-incrimination:).
Case: Butler V. McKellar 494 US 407 (1990)

90} Petitioner was sentenced to greater punishment then Legislature intended:
(Due Process at sentencing) New juvenile laws
Case; Rutledge V. united States 517 US 292 (1966)

93} Petitioners confession (or admission) was obtained during police interrogation in which petitioner was denied the right to have counsel, and or parent present.
(Protection against self-incrimination)
Case: Miranda V. Arizona 384 Us 436 (1966)

97} Trial court failed to instruct the jury on mitigating metal states regarding the offence in which petitioner was convicted.
(Due process, trial by jury) History of metal illness, duress, etc
Case: Gilmore V. Taylor 508 US 333 (1993)

99} Petitioner is actually innocent of the crime of which she was convicted, resulting in a miscarriage of justice which can be corrected on Habeas Corpus.
(Due Process)
Case Schlup V. Delo, 513 US 298 (1995)

No comments:

Post a Comment