Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
About Christophers Case

About Christophers Case

Ratings: (0)|Views: 26|Likes:
Published by makeawish

More info:

Published by: makeawish on May 24, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Christopher was convicted of Capital Murder on February 1st 2006 for theRobbery/homicide of 
"Hash" Patel. His conviction was based onfaulty insufficient evidence, hearsay testimony and Racial biasness. During Juryselection, the prosecutor committed numerous acts of racial biasness against jurors that fit the true description of "jury of my peers". The prosecutor struck(dismissed) 3 Black women, for different reasons, and could not give a legitimaterace-neutral reason for doing so. The reasons the prosecutor gave werecontradictory, being that other Non-Black jurors interviewed had the sameissues, and were either struck by the defense or served on the jury. The first juror that was subjected to racial biasness was Geneva Nealy Johnson.When she was questioned by the State Prosecutor she was asked if she could befair and render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented. Her answerwas " The defendant appears to be the age of my son. I'm not sure I could rendera fair verdict, I believe in Capital punishment but I just cant make that decisionalone". The Prosecutor then asked if the evidence proved to merit thepunishment of death, could she be fair and hand the death penalty out. Ms Johnson answered "Yes". The prosecutor then went on to strike Ms Johnsonstating she could not be fair or impartial. Two other potential jurors had similarissues regarding the rendition of a fair and impartial verdict, and were not struckby the prosecutor. The first was Jason Olivarr. When he was asked could he befair and impartial, he answered, "I get easily nervous and could easily be swayedfor either party if they pressured hard enough". Mr Olivarr went on to tell theprosecutor that he suffered from depression and had suicidal thoughts. He saidhe was currently seeing a psychiatrist and was taking an anti depressant. LikeMs Johnson, he says he could not make a death decision himself nor be fair andimpartial. Unlike Ms Johnson, Mr Olivarr went on to serve on the jury. Anotherparallel to Ms Johnson's situation was Mr Pena, Mr Pena indicated that he couldnot be fair because he had business with the Patels and his son frequented theconvenience store that the incident occurred in. Being that Mr Pena says heknew the victim, this would count as a blatant prejudice to the case, andsupposed to result in for automatic dismissal. Nonetheless the state went on toaccept Mr Pena on the jury. He did not serve because the defense struck himdue to his personal connections to the victim.Like Ms Johnson both of these jurors said that they couldn't be fair and each gavedecent reasons. Unlike Ms Johnson, who was black, the state still accepted MrOlivarr and Mr Pena, although Mr Olivarr was mentally unstable and Mr Pena wasclearly prejudiced due to his personal connections to the case. The Second Juror that was struck was M. Anderson Williams. Ms Williams saidthat she was involved in an outreach ministry that went door to door in differenthousing projects to get families closer to God. She was asked does her Ministryparticipate in going into Jails to minister to inmates. She said yes, but shedoesn't do it personally. She also said that she has 2 children and one had acriminal conviction, but she didn't know what for. The prosecutor struck herbecause she was involved in a ministry that goes inside Jails and ministers toprisoners, plus her daughter had a larceny conviction in N.Carolina.Four of the Non-Black people who eventually served on the jury, either had closerelatives with criminal histories or had criminal histories themselves. In addition5 Non-Black panellist, that was interviewed was accepted by the state, buteventually struck by the defence had similar histories. That's 9 Non-BlackPanellist that contradicted the states reason for striking Ms Williams, the most
bizarre was Mr Rodrigo Rodriquez and Mr Ramon Fuentes, JR. Mr Rodriquez has abrother who was convicted and sentenced to 10 years for aggravated sexualassault. Mr Rodriquez went o to not only serve on the jury but also became the jury's Forman which is the speaker/leader of the jury. Mr Fuentes also had abrother who was charged in a shooting and rape of his landlord. The state wenton to accept him on the jury, but the defense struck him. Both of these caseswere in Texas and handled by the Bexar County Prosecutors office, which is thesame office that handled my case. The third juror that was racially struck was Ms Paulette Childress-Bell. Ms Bellstated she could assess the Death Penalty if the evidence proved the case. Shealso said that her husband and son have been stopped by the police, and feltthat they were racially profiled, A common occurrence on the side of town we arefrom. The state went on to strike Ms Bell, their reasons being "Her husband andson as Black Men felt they were subjects of racial profiling. The state stated 3more reasons after this one that were race neutral, but the damage was donewith the first. When the defense asked the judge to step in due to racialprejudice on the basis that the first reason was purely racist, the judge'sresponse was "Yeah it was, but the others weren't" He agreed and did nothingabout it. All 3 of those instances was challenged legally under Batson VKentucky which is a challenge that weights if the prosecutors motives were racebased or not. Being that the reasons the prosecutor gave to strike these threeBlack panellists, came up numerous times with other Non-Black panellist, therewas only one way to justify a Race-Neutral reason, to strike all jurors that havethe same issues, no matter Race or gender. These 3 women are from the same side of town that I grew up on and know theeveryday occurrences of violence and racial profiling. These women also havekids, nieces, and nephews that are subjected to these occurrences, so theyunderstand what type of life Ive been through. These women are the "Peers"that's supposed to make up a Jury.During the Guilt/innocence phase of trial, the state prosecutor presented the jurywith 2 eyewitnesses and a video tape of the murder. The first witness MrsHelton happened to be sitting in the parking lot, directly in front of theentrance/exit of the convenience store, in her car scratching lotto tickets. In herpolice report, taken 45 minutes after the murder, Mrs Helton says she heard oneshot and an alarm go off. She then seen a man walk out of the store and lookinside her car. She said she made eye contact with the man until he got into aRed car and drove off. Police asked Mrs Helton if she can identify the man if sheseen him again, she said "yes" minutes later, I was brought in for a one man lineup to see if Mrs Helton could identify me as the man that came out of the store.After several minutes of me turning left and right, and her looking me in theface. Mrs Helton said I was not the man that came out of the store. The second witness Mr Vasquez Jr. He was parked next to Mrs Helton during theshooting, Mr Vasquez said in his police report, which was taken at the same timeas Ms Helton's, that he also got a good look at the suspect. He went through thesame process of identification. Mr Vasquez said I was not the same man.During trial , 16 months later, both of these eyewitnesses got on stand and bothidentified me in the courtroom. Obviously since each witness is prepped beforetestimony, I was going to be identified. My attorneys never asked either witnesswhy 16 months after the crime I could be identified, but minutes after I couldn't.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->