|
Death Row Prisoner in need of legal assitance
TO:
ATTORNEY'S AT LAW SUBJECT:
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL INTRODUCTION: Dear
Counselor: My name is
Crandell McKinnon. I am a condemned prisoner on San Quentin’s Death
Row. I have been on the row since March 11, 1999, and soon after I was
contacted by C.A.P. (California Appellate Project) that my automatic
direct appeal is being processed for representation. However, it takes a
minimum of four years to obtain counsel which brings me to the reason
why I'm addressing this letter to you, I am eager to reach the merits of
my appeal because I'm confident that the court will find that there are
numerous reversible and constitutional errors in my case. But I need
counsel who is fully competent to address the gross injustice I have
been dealt. I am asking for your help and seeking your assistance in
representing me. If you are willing to do this we can work out the
formalities with the California Supreme Court. Due to the
serious nature of my situation I am anxious to move forward with my
appeal because I am confident I will receive my freedom. I do not wish
to live out my life on death row while lawyers engage in procedural
wrangling. I discern that in lengthy delays problems can arise regarding
loss of evidence, demise of witnesses and destruction of crucial files.
I want to avoid this at all cost. To assure
that I'm not wasting your valuable time I ask that you bare with me as I
outline a brief synopsis of my case. But first I want to emphatically
state "I’M INNOCENT",
"I’M NOT GULTY" I
did not commit the crimes for which I have been wrongly found
guilty of. The court transcripts; police reports and other related
documents will clearly show
there bas been grave miscarriage of
justice in my case. BRIEF
SUMMARY: In March
of 1995 I was charged with one (1) count of first degree murder. Then in
June of 1996 I was charged with a separate count of first degree murder.
Both of these charges were subsequently consolidated along with the
D.A.'s filing of "Special Circumstances" seeking the death
penalty. The
evidence for count one was as follows:
The
facts supporting my innocence in count one include but are not limited
to the following:
In
count one I was alleged to have murdered a man for no apparent reason.
W1 who is alleged to be my co-defendant but an unknowing participant in
the homicide gave numerous statements to the detectives and the D.A.’s
office. He denied being involved of having knowledge of the
participants. He was later threatened by the D.A. and forced to
implicate me (and himself) in the murder (this false confession in on
audio tape). Before being told that he would be charged with murder if
he didn’t cooperate, W1 gave two different statements: The first; that
he knew nothing of the homicides. The second, (after some
pressure) that he was there but didn’t see the actual killing take
place. These two stories were not to the D.A.’s liking and the
D.A. told him; “You are either a defendant or a eyewitness.” Thus
this so-called eyewitness revise his story and the D.A. excepts
this new version knowing it was an outright lie. W2
in this case was a paid informant and had previously testified in
numerous other homicide cases for the Riverside D.A.’s office. He also
had a previous murder charge that was dropped. He was also paid for this
testimony against me. Both
of these witnesses profoundly contradicted each other in their
statements. Their testimony does not coincide with either the facts,
evidence, or witnesses in this case (witnesses who managed to
mysteriously disappear at the beginning of my trial). For instance; both
of these alleged eyewitnesses claimed to be standing under a tree in a
field, yet both denied the other was there (there is only one tree in
this field). Also neither of them placed themselves within thirty yards
of the tree. W1 claimed me and him ran through the field northbound
leaving my vehicle behind, which was not found or seen at the crime
scene nor in the area. W2 said I acted alone and left the
crime scene walking westbound up the street to buy myself and him
some beer, yet he also made it clear I was not aware of his presence in
the field. There
was also testimony by a witness in my behalf at the preliminary hearing,
but at trial this witness changed her testimony and testified against me
due to the D.A.’s tampering and intimidation tactics. The witness never
made any statement claiming to have witness me killing anyone.
What’s of key interest here is that the D.A. is heard on audio tape
telling W1 to talk to this witness and get her to alter her testimony. I
quote; “I need her to say she lied at preliminary hearing to protect
you and because she’s scared of Popeye (me).” This is just one of
many excerpts. Every key witness that testified for the prosecution
admitted to lying, and that they were under the influences of alcohol
and cocaine and had not slept for days at the time the murder occurred. As
to count two the evidence is as follows:
The
facts supporting my innocence in count two include but are not limited
to the following:
For
instance, the jailhouse informant gave a statement to the D.A.’s
investigator about me after discussing my case and his confinement
situation off tape. The information the informant gave was information
the D.A. already had on tape for two years prior to his interview with
the informant. The information had come from W2 in count one who said
that it was only street rumours (referring to me killing the
victim). The information further claimed he knew the victim’s death
before I allegedly told him, which was three to four months before the
victim was actually killed. Astounding, yet the D.A. knowingly
allowed this informant to testify to this blatant lie. None of what the
informant testified to was consistent with the facts, evidence or other
witness accounts in this case. He also lied about receiving a deal from
the D.A. office, both in the preliminary hearing and the trial. Now
regarding the gun (alleged murder weapon). It was found in another
person’s possession. She pled guilty to a weapon charge, and according
to the ballistic reports there was uncertainty as to rather the gun was
the actual murder weapon. The D.A.’s own investigator wrote him a
letter stating that he (the investigator) was going to make the
woman a witness against me, or arrest her for 32 P.C., accessory to
murder. Both the D.A. and his investigator knew fully well that this gun
belonged to that woman. The
D.A. chose to condone and engage in these ruthless bully tactics because
without them obtaining a verdict of guilty against me would have been
impossible. Along with the ineffectiveness of my attorney who failed to
call witnesses and investigate third party culpability in count two
which the D.A. had evidence of. Let
me also add (concerning the street name, Popeye, the detective claimed
the eyewitness in count one gave him), there were three other males with
that moniker in the area where the homicides occurred, which is a very
small community. One is African-American, and the other two are
Hispanic. It also came out during trial I was not the only black male in
town using Popeye as a nickname. As
you can see there are many malicious acts of misconduct that marred
justice in my case. There is a clear and undeniable question of
credibility of all the witnesses who testified against me. (The D.A.’s
main source of incriminating evidence.) I have only scratched the
surface to pique your legal interest and stir your sense of justice. If
you can arrange a visit with me, hear me out, you can judge for yourself
the weight of my argument and I promise the trip will not be a waste of
your time. I am aware that you may be unable to take my case or arrange
a visit. Therefore, I ask that you turn my concerns over to your
colleagues, associates, or anyone truly competent and wants to see
justice prevail. I would profoundly appreciate any help you can
provide. I apologize for rambling and consuming too much of your
attention if I have done so, I know you’re extremely busy, but as you
can see my need is exigent. Thank you for baring with me, and again, any
advice you can give me is highly welcomed. I
look forward to hearing from you. Respectfully,
Click here to visit Crandell's profile
|