Wow, 23 times to get the Supreme Court to pay attention to the grave, racist injustice of non-unanimous juries. What a monument to persistence and commitment. Now we need to get Louisiana to make Ramos apply to those already incarcerated. It's so crazy that something deemed unconstitutional is not unconstitutional for all.
That's right, Rose. We climb one hilltop just to see the mountain waiting behind it. And we carry on up! You and Sr. Helen know that as well as I do. Glad we can walk the road together. Calvin.
A "crack in the wall" is exactly right! I'm impressed that you took that many cases on the unanimous jury issue to SCOTUS; I'm saddened that it took that many cases; and I'm relieved that some cracks are starting to form. As someone wise once said, "sometimes our destiny finds us on the road we took to avoid it." I still haven't read your book, New Mexico prisons are cracking down on giving us access to new publications. But I will eventually buy one, have it scanned, and then be able to enjoy it.
As for the "cracking walls" I'm seeing in my legal battle for exoneration. Well, the trial court had until 10/2 to make a decision as to whether my current habeas petition will move forward or be summarily dismissed. What I've learned from local attorneys is that judges rarely adhere to the law and face no real consequences for passing the time limits established by statute. What I've seen on the inside is that habeas cases often linger on dockets for a decade or more without action from the courts.
Yesterday I filed a proposed order directly with the judge, arguing that since nothing has been done and no response from the state has been forthcoming that the petition should be granted. Obviously that won't happen, but I'm hopeful that it might cause action from the judge.
I fully believe that the judge has every intention to deny the petition, but by waiting she's keeping me from further appeal and adjudication in the higher courts. Keep in mind that the issue that the courts have evaded in my case is whether someone can be convicted on the accusation of a single accuser (the only direct evidence) who was likewise a suspect and whose accusation was never passed through the "crucible" of cross-examination—i.e., his accusation was introduced through a proxy.
It truly is amazing how far the law can be bent without breaking.
I have just discovered your book and I'm trying to communicate more with you. What can we do to get you to come to Utah and how do we get some of your books into our prison system? I look forward to hearing from you. I am still listening to the book and I cannot even fathom what you have gone through and what you have become it is a true testament of your Incredible perseverance, and strength
Wow, 23 times to get the Supreme Court to pay attention to the grave, racist injustice of non-unanimous juries. What a monument to persistence and commitment. Now we need to get Louisiana to make Ramos apply to those already incarcerated. It's so crazy that something deemed unconstitutional is not unconstitutional for all.
That's right, Rose. We climb one hilltop just to see the mountain waiting behind it. And we carry on up! You and Sr. Helen know that as well as I do. Glad we can walk the road together. Calvin.
PS. I also love the story about the book making its way into the hands of people incarcerated around the country.
A "crack in the wall" is exactly right! I'm impressed that you took that many cases on the unanimous jury issue to SCOTUS; I'm saddened that it took that many cases; and I'm relieved that some cracks are starting to form. As someone wise once said, "sometimes our destiny finds us on the road we took to avoid it." I still haven't read your book, New Mexico prisons are cracking down on giving us access to new publications. But I will eventually buy one, have it scanned, and then be able to enjoy it.
As for the "cracking walls" I'm seeing in my legal battle for exoneration. Well, the trial court had until 10/2 to make a decision as to whether my current habeas petition will move forward or be summarily dismissed. What I've learned from local attorneys is that judges rarely adhere to the law and face no real consequences for passing the time limits established by statute. What I've seen on the inside is that habeas cases often linger on dockets for a decade or more without action from the courts.
Yesterday I filed a proposed order directly with the judge, arguing that since nothing has been done and no response from the state has been forthcoming that the petition should be granted. Obviously that won't happen, but I'm hopeful that it might cause action from the judge.
I fully believe that the judge has every intention to deny the petition, but by waiting she's keeping me from further appeal and adjudication in the higher courts. Keep in mind that the issue that the courts have evaded in my case is whether someone can be convicted on the accusation of a single accuser (the only direct evidence) who was likewise a suspect and whose accusation was never passed through the "crucible" of cross-examination—i.e., his accusation was introduced through a proxy.
It truly is amazing how far the law can be bent without breaking.
I have just discovered your book and I'm trying to communicate more with you. What can we do to get you to come to Utah and how do we get some of your books into our prison system? I look forward to hearing from you. I am still listening to the book and I cannot even fathom what you have gone through and what you have become it is a true testament of your Incredible perseverance, and strength