Wednesday, July 31, 2013

evidence of actual innocence


Evidence of Actual Innocence

On January 7 1998, Anthony First, AKA Apache,, was a homicide victim in Racine WI, On the same day Plaze Anderson AKA Quick brought Montae Hudson to the police station and Anderson told police that Hudson told him (Anderson) that it was Marvin Wilson and Fradario Brim committed the crime, Anderson also the police not to let Hudson know that he (Anderson) had provided those names to them. Anderson further told the police he was with the victim but he went to urinate between two houses so did not see who shot A First. Police did riot believe Hudson, they believed Anderson.
On July 23,1998 police arrested Wilson in .Paducah, KY where he was living and questioned him about the homicide of A. First. Wilson told the Paducah police that he was in Milwaukee at the time in question preparing for his aunt Veronica Hill’s birthday party which is also January 7, the day at the homicide.
Wilson was extradited to Racine, WI. on July 30, 1998. At the preliminary  hearing the D.A. produced an affidavit D.A. Alleged was from Wilson given to Bill Warmington. The affidavit alleged that Wilson shot at A. First from a distance of two houses away and that Hudson ran up to A. First and shot him at close range. The affidavit further alleged that  the guns used in the case were thrown in the sewer at Latopitia Restaurant,
The above is relevant to say that the D.A. and police manufactured evidence to obtain a convic­tion, The police believe Anderson and since Hudson was supposed to be a direct eyewithess but claimed not to know who shot A First. The police manufactured a false- affidavit implicating Hudson. This is a ruse created for the purpose of scaring Hudson into accusing Wilson and Brim to save his own life from a wrongful conviction.
Further, everything in the affidavit, is false according to the prosecutor, this indicates that the D.A, may not have been in on the manufactured affidavit but the D.A. still used it as evi­dence as if the affidavit was true. But nothing in the affidavit was fact. The D.A. argued that Wilson and Brim did the crime- contrary to the affidavit. The D.A. Restaurant - contrary to facts, because the sewers were pumped clean and no guns were found there . Thus
the affidavit's sole purse was a ruse to obtain a conviction.
The affidavit's format itself is in question. It only consist of 7 vague sentences. And those 7 sentences are on one page with enough room at the bottom for a signature. But a signature is on a separate piece of paper. Warmington told Wilson that this was a waiver form. Wilson never gave a statement to Warmington,
Another ruse used was an alleged audio-tape confession DA Claimed Wilson made n Paducah. In this alleged tape, the D.A. claimed Wilson said Hudson ran up to A First and shot him in the stomach three times. However, during the discovery hearings the DA only produced a blank tape to Wilson's attorney. This alleged tape was never heard in open court or any­where else. Wilson's attorney told the court  that the D.A. ”assured “him that there was an actual tape with words on it. But what words are on it? It was never heard.
Due to the above ruses Wilson’s attorney., Charles Swanson, advised Wilson that the first degree homicide charge was insurmountable so Wilson should plead no- contest to an amended charge, i.e. count 1, second degree intentional homicide; self defense and count 2, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, even though no guns related to this case were found. Swanson advised that no time would be given  on count one due to the self defense element and that Wilson might get a few years on count 2 due to being a felon already

Evidence of a Manufactured Case


Marvin D Wilson, an innocent man, is in prison for a homicide that he did not commit, since July 23, 1998.  The case was manufactured against him by the D.A. Brian Paliak and the lead investigator Bill Warmington. What they used as evidence contradicts the facts. Also an eyewitness has come forward with the truth..
The D.A. says  the defendant was arrested on July 24, 1998: Facts says July 23, 1998. This alle­gation, by the D.A., was made only after the defendant stated at his evidentiary hearing in January 2000, that Paducah, KY FBI agent Phil Lewzendar and officer Bill Abernathy made up the alleged confession. So the D.A. tries to discredit the defendant by saying that he is lying because, allegedly, he wasn t arrested on July 23 and Lewzendar and Abernathy weren't at work on July 24 so could not have made up any confession. However, how did the defendant get these names and he has 8 documents of fact showing he was arrested on July 23, 1998. And in the defendant's 1999 sentencing transcripts, the same D.A. clearly states that it is July 23 that the defen­dant was arrested.
The D.A. uses as evidence that the defendant allegedly gave a taped confession in KY to Lewzendar and Abernathy: The facts are the alleged tape was never heard in open court. When the D,A, gave the defendant's attorney an alleged copy of the alleged tape, it was Blank! And the D.A. went on to alleged that the alleged tape contradicted known facts,
The D.A. claimed that the defendant committed the crime with Fradario Brim; But the D.A, uses as evidence, an alleged confession tape that says the defendant committed the crime with Montae Hudson, who was allegedly a witness that was with the victim,
The D.A. presents the fact that the victim was shot in the head close-range, and says the defendant did it; But uses as evidence the alleged confession tape that says the defendant allegedly said he shot at the victim from 2 houses away and that Montae Hudson, who was originally with the victim ran up to the victim end shot the victim 2 times in the stomach, close-range,
The D.A. uses as evidence an affidavit the D.A. alleges the defendant made in Racine to Bill Warmington; facts snow that no confession was made in Racine. The affidavit was manufactured by Warmington. It only consist of 7 short sentences on one page- with enough space on the page for a signature. However, the defendant's signature is on a completely different piece of paper. Warmington said it was a waiver form. The defendant only stated that he was in Milwaukee preparing for his aunt Veronica Hill's birthday party which is 1/7/1990, the same day of the homicide,
The D.A. uses as evidence that the affidavit says that the guns used in the crime, were 'thrown in the sewers by Latopitia Restaurant; Facts show that the sewers were pumped clean, only to
find no guns or weapons at all.
Thus if the 2 alleged confessions were true, why would none of the alleged confession match any fact? Because it is false, The alleged confessions only mention Montie Hudson as the accomplice. These manufactured pieces of evidence were made by the police involving Hudson because he was an alleged witness that the police claim knew what happened but wouldn't tell. So they manufactured an affidavit with him in claiming the defendant accused him so that he (Hudson) would see it then accuse the defendant and Brim, like he did and police and the D.A. wanted to save his own life from a frame-up. (But he later pleaded the 5th at Brim's trial), The affidavit was a ruse. Hudson was never charged because it was only a scare tactic to get the defendant and Brim because the police believed Plaze Anderson, who was the first person to implicate the defendant and Brim in this crime. However, Brim was acquitted. Under the scheme of manufactured evidence, these inconsistencies prove that the alleged confession is false and the defendant is innocent.
Marvin D Wilson 734329
NLCI; PO Box4000
New Lisbon, WI 53950

Eyewitness Statement


  Eyewitness Statement

I Davion Davis hereby say, that on 1 -7-198, I was at my home at 1822 Franklin St. city of Racine, state of Wisconsin on 1.7.1998 the night Anthony First was killed. That while in the home I heard what I believed to be firecrackers going off so I exited the residence to see what or who had set them off. That exited to the rear porch area of my home where I saw a car parked in the alley was behind 1820 Franklin St. There were no occupants at the time inside the vehicle.
A few seconds later I saw two men running through the yards of 1820 Franklin and 1616 Franklin where I learned minutes later the homicide of my cousin Anthony First occurred. These two men entered the vehicle that was still started and drove away.
I did not witness the actual homicide itself that occurred. I know for a fact that Marvin
Wilson was not one of the men I saw fleeing the scene therefore did not kill Anthony First,
Days after this homicide I was kidnapped and shot because of what I’d apparently witnessed on 1-7-1998, an accomplice in the shooting was one Plaze Anderson. I chose not to pursue any form of justice in the matter against Plaze Anderson upon my own free will.
,
I Davion Davis, verify that the above statement is true to my recollection pursuant to 28 u.s.c.  §1746

Dated 3.3.2008

What This New Evidence proves



The self defense element on the plea induced Wilson to plead no- contest even though innocent. What proves this that Swanson  advised Wilson would get no time on count 1 is that on the plea form, the WIS. STAT 939.50 showing how much time he faced on each count was not on count 1 out it was on count 2 showing that he faced 2 years.

This along with the plea hearing transcript prove that this was part Of a plot to get a conviction. Wilson’s attorney chose not to fight the case and chose to go along with a plot against his client. Wilson had several witnesses from Milwaukee to prove his
whereabouts. However, Swanson insisted on not using them. These witnesses are relatives that were at the residence in Milwaukee and friends or relatives. Wilson's attorney relied on the "evidence”' that the D.A. presented and not the 'facts" of the case.

On  direct  appeal, Wilson was  appointed  appeal counsel Patrick  Donnaly, who never even came to see Wilson face to face. Donnaly wanted to file no-merit without even discussing the merits of the case. And the court of appeals allowed him to withdraw without first filing an Anders brief, Thus Wilson was forced pro se on post-conviction/direct appeal.

On January  21,  2000 Wilson   had  a  post-conviction   hearing.  After   elucidating  his  issues, and explaining  how  he  was  framed, the D.A. and  court-reporter   left   out  of   the  court   r oom  to  allegedly "check  the  record” about   the  date  of  Wilson’s  arrest.   When they came back in the courtroom the DA said that Wilson as arrested on 7.24.1998  opposed to 7 .23..1998 as Wilson  claimed  and facts  proved. At  said  hearing Wilson  stated  that  any  evidence  used to convict him had to have been  manufactured  by  police  in Paducah.  So the D.A. tries to discre­dit Wilson by  saying  that  Wilson  is  lying  because  he  allegedly, wasn’t  arrested  on 7,23,1998  but on 7,24.1998 and said Paducah police (Phil Lewzendar and Bill Abernathy) weren’t  at work-on 7,24 • 1998 so could not have manufactured the evidence, However, even in the motion, was a police report iron Paducah stating 7.23.1998 as arrest date.

 The court took advantage of Wilson because he was pro se. The transcript that Wilson was given of this hearing is an excerpt, with everything Wilson said about being framed extracted. Wilson complained to the court or appeals about this and they did not make the lower court produce the entire transcript, That transcript of the January 21, 2000 hearing had everything Wilson said about how this case was not based on facts but on manufactured evidence taken out. Wilson also has 8 documents that have 7,23.1998 as arrest date.

In 2002 Wilson  obtained from codefendants, Fradario Brim, Brim's discovery. Brim was acquitted. Brim's discovery had exculpatory evidence. It mentions of an actual tape with words on it of Tomicca. Duffy. The police report that goes with this tape had 7.23.1998. written on it as the arrest date and Duffy saying Wilson was in Milwaukee at the time. Also in Brim' s discovery is a store surveilance tape of Plaze Anderson who came into the store saying he just seen his friend, A. First, get shot in the head. But in all police reports he claimed to not have been at the scene but on the other side of town when it happened and that his son told him of it.. Also it had witnesses saying A. First owed Anderson money so Anderson Killed him, Wilson's discovery did not have any of this. Anything that mentioned any other suspect was not in Wilson's discovery.

In 2008 a witness came forward with the truth. Davion Davis, the victims cousin, said days after the homicide, Anderson kidnapped him and attempted to kill him for what he had seen that flight. He said he seen Anderson and someone else run between two houses and get into an awaiting car. That days later they kidnapped him and snot him. However, he managed to get away.
Wilson has been through all appeals pro se to no avail. He is an innocent man in prison for a crime he did not commit. He ask that anyone who can help, please do. Thank you to all that have taken the time to read this. If you would like to help, please contact Marvin at:

Marvin D Wilson 734329
NLCI; PO Box4000
New Lisbon, WI 53950

Feel free to contact FFUP if you have suggestions for Marvin or are willing to help. pgswan3@yahoo.com



Monday, September 5, 2011

the catch twenty twos of parole

These are the excuses parole eligible men hear decade after decade.
PAROLE ISSUES
1. YOU HAVE NOT SERVED SUFFICIENT TIME FOR PUNISHMENT.
The Wisconsin parole board gives out 12, 24, 36 and 48 month defers. Thus is the equivalent of sentencing the parole seeker to 1 co 4 additional years in prison even though the parole board isn't even a judge.
The common statement used by the parole board to deny parole is: "You have not served sufficient time for punishment." However the •board has not, nor has anyone, documented what is "sufficient time for punishment." Thus what is sufficient time served for punishment?
Wisconsin law sets parole dates for prisoners after they have serve:! 25% of their sentence and when sentenced by the judge, the judge had this in mind. Hence, if 25% of a sentence makes the prisoner eligible for release, thus 25% must be. Sufficient time for punishment. However, the parole board has been allowed to act as de facto court of law, de facto jury, de facto prosecutor and de facto sentencing judge, in the parole boards reconvicting and sentencing a prisoner to 1 to 4 additional years and denying parole, with the statement 'that: "You have not served, sufficient, time for punishment." Under Wisconsin law, that statement would be true only if the prisoner petitioned to see the parole board before completing 25% of his or her sentence. Thus 25% is sufficient time to serve for punishment under Wisconsin law.

The facts remain that the parole commissioner and parole board does not belong to the Wisconsin Bar Association of the state of Wisconsin, thus has not been licensed by the state of Wisconsin to act in the capacity of a prosecutor, jury, judge and court of law to Take a determination that after a prisoner under old or new law, has served 25% of their sentence, the prisoner has not served sufficient time for punishment and re-convict and sentence the prisoner to 1 to 4 additional years. When that judge sentenced the prisoner, the judge had the 25% parole date in mind and did not mean for the parole board to re convict and re-sentence the prisoner after he or she has done 25% of their sentence. Again, if 25% of a sentence is sufficient time to make the prisoner eligible for release according to Wisconsin law, then 25% must be sufficient time served for punishment. Or Wisconsin's parole law of 25% is just smoke and mirrors.

So what is the percentage of Wisconsin parole eligible prisoners that get out after doing 25% of their sentence? Or in other words, what percentage gets out the first time they see the parole board? If the percentage is not 90% or more, then the 25% parole hearing date is a legislative waste and a false hope for the prisoner. Thus is a violation of Due Process Rights.

Wisconsin law states that sufficient time has 'been served when old and new law prisoners have completed 25% of their sentence. The parole boards use of the statement: "You have not served sufficient time for punishment" is too loosely used. For it is a routine statement that is used in every case. So what is sufficient time served for punishment? If the prisoner has reached 25% of their sentence and the parole -board admits, or prison records show that the prisoner has had satisfactory behavior upon reaching- 25%, then that is sufficient time, served for punishment. If serving 25% of a sentence is sufficient time to be "eligible" for release, then why is 25% not sufficient time served for punishment? It appears that Wisconsin's 25% parole law is only a theory and not an actual practice because records show that no one is being released, at 25% of their sentence i.e. their first parole hearing date. So lets put this theory into practice.

The parole board saying an old or new law prisoner, has not served sufficient time for punishment is semantics and a play of words because if the statement was true, the prisoner could not have met with the parole board if that prisoner had not served sufficient time for punishment. The prisoner could not see the parole board before he or she has completed 25%of the sentence because the prisoner had not completed sufficient time for punishment i.e. 25% of their sentence, according to Wisconsin law of 25% of the sentence must be completed before parole can be given.

However, the parole board has not defined, on a consistent bases, what a "sufficient time to serve for punishment" is. Though it is well defined in Wisconsin law, but not practiced, that sufficient time for punishment is 25% of a sentence, it that is the use to set a parole 'date at 25% of a sentence but don't let ANYONE out at 25% of a sentence and the parole board says serving 25% of a sentence is not sufficient time served for punishment? It is a catch-22. The parole board is essentially saying that they are the prosecutor, jury, judge and court of law and can re-convict and re-sentence a prisoner to 1 to 4 more years at a time or in some cases MR.

In the days of parole commissioner John Huss in the early 1990's, prisoners had a hope of being paroled after serving 25% (or soon after) no matter the arias they were in prison for. Thus Wisconsin's prisons were less crowded.

2. RELEASE AT THIS TIME WOULD INVOLVE AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO THE PUBLIC
Another common term of the parole board is: Release at this time would involve an unreasonable risk, to the public." However, the parole board does not even present any reasonable evidence, or evidence at all, from the prisoners prison file to backup this statement. Thus the statement is just routine and not of any factual bases if it is used on all prisoners. The parole board member, on average, meets with a prisoner for less than an hour and can not reasonably determine if the prisoner is a risk to society based- on a one time meeting. For a person that never met you before to say you are an unreasonable risk to the public is unreasonable.
If a person is sentenced to 40 years in prison, under old or new law, that would mean he or she had to do 10 years (25%) before having a parole hearing. Ten years is a long time and for the most part, the prisoner has completed HSED/GED, a vocational trade class, ME programming and took sane time out for self-improvement and maturing. Thus the prisoner is not and unreasonable risk to the community in whence he or she came from, or any community, but rather a more mature person that has made sane accomplishments even in an adverse place like prison.
For prison in itself is a community, with populations reaching over one thousand, and if the prisoner has not been convicted of a crime in over ten years of incarceration, then the prisoner has consistently shown for years on end that he or she poses no threat to the "outer" community. Thus how can the parole board truthfully and reasonably state that the prisoner is -an unreasonable risk to the public? The parole board members have used this routine statement to place themselves as a god or fortuneteller to be able to foresee the future to determine that a person who served 25% of their sentence would be an unreasonable risk to the public if released. Thus statement violates Due- Process and constitutional rights.

3. YOUR PROGRAM PARTICIPATION HAS NOT BEEN SATISFACTORY
Further, the parole board uses: "Your program participation has not been satisfactory" to deny release. When a prisoner has had his Assessment and Evaluation (A&E) he is given certain programs to complete such as HSED, vocational training and anger management. However, once he gets to his designated prison, it is up to the program directors to allow him into the program such as anger management, AODA and CGIP regardless if he request to complete the program. So the person with the 40 year sentence can request the anger management program as soon as he gets into the prison but he will be denied access due to his sentence length. The programs director will state, "Due to the length of your sentence, prisoners with shorter time have priority to this program. Request again when you get closer to your mandatory release date." Which is 26 years (or 2/3 of the 4-0 year sentence). This, in itself, makes the A&E process obsolete if the prisoner is parole eligible at 25% their sentence but can't take certain programs until their mandatory release date. Three things stand out here.
1. If the prisoner is being denied access to needed anger management programming, the DOC is not preparing the prisoner for release at 25% of that sentence. A person that has a parole date should have the same priority to a program as a person with a short sentence, because in theory, the person should get out once 25% of their sentence is completed. If the prisoner is in and out of the hole for fighting, the denial of programming is a factor because the DOC has previously assessed him, at A&E, with an anger problem but won't address it promptly by getting him the needed programming.
2. If the DOC is denying the prisoner access to a program, the parole board will use this against the prisoner as program participation not being satisfactory, even though it is documented that the prisoner has tried to complete all recommended programs before his 25% has been served.
3. If the prisoner has 40 years but being denied anger management until mandatory release, that would mean that he will have to be in prison for 26 years with this untreated anger problem, that the DOC assessed that ha has 26 years ago, before he can get in the program and it gets treated. What is the logic behind this? None! Prisoners with parole dates should have priority to programs to prepare them for release at 25% of their sentence. If not, the DOC is either saying that, he has to self-treat an anger problem that he don't understand why he has for 26 years until the DOC is ready to treat it, the DOC is using denial of programs to keep prisons packed or there really is no anger problem, the DOC just put anger management on A&E routinely, so the parole board has something to use against releasing prisoners at 25%(or at any point)

The crux of the matter is, it is not the prisoner who is "refusing" the program, that is a different matter. It is the DOC who is refusing to allow the prisoner access to complete the program. If a prisoner has reached 25% of their sentence and has not refused any programs, and the DOC has denied him access to programs that ME said are necessary, then the prisoner has done no wrong in that regard, as such he should be released.

RECOMMENDED CHANGES
What use is it to have a parole hearing date at 25% of the sentence, by law, and have a, parole board that says 25% is not sufficient time served for punishment, contrary to law? The parole board is above the law. These two, theories and practices, conflict. One or the other is unconstitutional. And we can rationalize that it is the parole board's practices. With the Wisconsin law of 25% being sufficient time served to be released, it makes the parole board obsolete. The law of parole hearing date at 25% of the sentence and the prison record should be enough in determining if someone should be released. It would make things that much easier and ease the overcrowding prisons and save tax-payers money if parole eligible prisoners were released on paroles.

By serving 25% of a sentence not being sufficient time served for punishment according to the parole board and granting parole is now discretionary, it becomes a system of how the parole board member feels on any given day or how the member feels about a certain individual or the alleged crime, on whether to release that prisoner or not. Thus serving 25% of a sentence before a parole hearing and granting parole based on how the parole board member feels about you in a 30 minute meeting, is a conflict. If the judge sentenced a person to 40 years, the judge had it in mind that in 10 years (25%) that person would have completed programs and matured, thus should be released.

If a prisoner reached 25% of their sentence, and the parole board has no logical, not theoretical, evidence that release at this time would involve an unreasonable risk to the public, and the prisoner has tried to take recommended programs and the DOC denied him access, the prisoner should be released. It can not be a system of the prisoner meets Wisconsin's law of 25% but the parole board overrules Wisconsin state law and says, 25% is not sufficient time served for punishment. Or the prisoner readies 25% but the parole board denies release based on a risk to the public with no evidence to support that. Or the prisoner gets to 25% but the parole board denies release based on programs not being completed when it is the DOC that denies access to programming. It is all a catch-22 and needs to be changed. A policy must be put into place, retroactively, for old and new law prisoners, that have "reached (or would) 25% of their sentence, to cease the arbitrary discretionary parole board and allow 25% of a sentence to be sufficient time served for punishment, along with
1. a parole plan,
2. satisfactory record based on the last year (as they do now) before the current earing
3. no logical evidence showing that you are or would be a risk to the public,
4. an attempt to complete A&B programs before 25% of your sentence is up.

This way it is on the prisoner to show by evidence and facts, that they have served sufficient time, pose no threat to the public and have done all that they can to complete all necessary programs before they have reached 25% of their sentence.

SPECIAL ACTION PAROLE RELEASE, SEC. 304.02
The department shall use a special release program to relieve crowding in state prison by releasing certain prisoners to parole supervision using a procedure other than mandatory release under sec. 302.11 or release under sec. 304.06 (1) (b). Most prisoners under old and new law are in prison for homicide related cases and this is why granting parole is routinely denied. However, if viewed in its full context, most of these parole eligible prisoners were in their youth (teens and early 20*s) when these crimes occurred and now have spent their 20 's and part of their 30's (and some of them 40's, 50's and part of their 60's-prison). Thus they are no longer in their youth but mature adults that view the world differently, value life and want to contribute to society. The crimes are not excused because they were committed in their youth, and/or out of ignorance. However, it explains that the person that they were in their youth and now, are two totally different people. And to perpetually punish them for a crime done in their youth, and/or out of ignorance, serves no purpose to justice or to a so-called civilized society, when that 'person has changed and is positive now. Thus the department should use this special release program statue to release old and new law prisoners based on their conduct now, not their past crime, or based on who they ware 10, 15 or 20 years ago, to relieve prison overcrowding.

CONCLUSION
Therefore, the above facts are to be taken into consideration for a more uniformed approach to parole in any given case. Parole should be mandatory at 25% with satisfactory conduct for all old and new law prisoners, based on their behavior for the Last year prior to the parole hearing. To perpetually incarcerate changed people is inane and serves no purpose in the scheme of justice or restorative justice.

By: Marvin D Wilson

NLCI
PO Box 4000
New Lisbon, WI 53950                                                                                                                                    
P.O. box 19033
Green Bay, WI 54307