An illegal arrest

Arrested under false pretenses with uncorroborated claims of injuries, I faced a twisted legal battle where even my lawyer failed to challenge the illegitimate warrants or suppress illegal evidence. My Kafkaesque nightmare unwinds, revealing the dubious role of my ex-family, and a manipulated narrative that disregarded the actual events and testimonies. Read more

Prosecutor’s case theory

ADA Gallagher theorized I committed a murder disguising it as a sex crime, then fled to Southern CA via a longer route to dispose of evidence, all after a 9:30 AM call. Read more

Ignored exculpatory evidence & perjury

In my trial, the burden of proof seemed misplaced as the prosecutor strived to pin the crime on me, despite glaring inconsistencies and lack of concrete evidence. They couldn’t definitively place me at the crime scene, failed to connect me to any weapon used, and left the time of death ambiguous. Exculpatory evidence was presented, highlighting an unknown third party’s involvement, evident from a bloody fingerprint, mismatched shoe prints, and unfamiliar DNA at various crime scene locations. The prosecutor’s reliance on discredited testimony and a flawed timeline further weakened their case. Meanwhile, my physical condition—with no bruises or injuries—contradicted the expected aftermath of a violent altercation. The jury, misinterpreting their instructions, wrongfully convicted me despite the overwhelming reasonable doubt and numerous constitutional violations during the trial. Read more

Prosecutorial misconduct

The prosecution unjustly suppressed vital evidence in my case, violating my right to due process. Despite securing a discovery order, I was unable to access the Aronis caller ID investigation or the Chagniot voicemail, which could have corroborated key testimonies in my favor. Additionally, evidence such as a hair found under Fernand’s fingernail and undisclosed vaginal swab results were blatantly ignored, despite their potential to reveal the truth and significantly impact the trial’s outcome. Read more

Brady violation

The suppression of key evidence in my case, including the Aronis caller ID investigation and the alleged Chagniot voicemail, constitutes a violation of my right to due process. Despite obtaining a court order for post-conviction discovery, crucial items like these remain inaccessible. Additionally, overlooked details in the police reports, such as the location of a hair found on the victim and undisclosed DNA analysis, further suggest a neglect of potentially exonerating evidence. This raises serious questions about the fairness of the investigation and the integrity of my trial. Read more

Misconduct during summation

In my trial, the prosecutor made unfounded claims in his closing arguments, including false observations about evidence and misleading statements about the crime scene, which prejudiced the jury. This overreach, combined with the DA's early media revelations, swayed public opinion and potential witnesses, unfairly tilting the case against me. Read more

Ineffective assistance of counsel

My trial attorney, Ed Pomeroy, had the capability to challenge the prosecution's case but failed to act. He overlooked opportunities to question the credibility of Det. Aronis and Phillipe Chagniot and did not contest their unreliable testimonies. Pomeroy also missed crucial inconsistencies in the evidence, such as the questionable blood spot evidence. His silence allowed the prosecution to present a skewed narrative. This lack of vigorous defense, a right guaranteed by the constitution, significantly undermined my case in a system where effective legal representation is critical yet paradoxically aligned with the prosecuting body. Read more

Motion for a new trial

My trial counsel had grounds to request a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct, legal errors by the court, and a verdict contradicting the evidence, as per P.C. 1181(5) and 1181(6). However, such a motion could highlight his own shortcomings, potentially leading to civil litigation. His failure to act, despite the presence of exculpatory evidence and the prosecutor's misconduct, was detrimental. A fair trial was unattainable under these circumstances, and a retrial would likely have been declined by the prosecution due to insufficient evidence and the exposure of prosecutorial misdeeds. Read more

The trials & tribulations of post-conviction relief

After my conviction, I was entitled to case discovery, which I received in 2011. However, cooperation from the DA was lacking, and my attorney took over three years to provide essential documents, hindering my ability to file timely appeals.

In 2012, I filed a writ of habeas corpus, but faced a disconcerting lack of response from the courts. My petition was eventually denied without proper consideration, a fact I learned 15 months later, affecting the timeliness of my subsequent appeals. During this process, my direct appeal was weakened by my attorney’s ineffective assistance, leading to the dismissal of important claims.

Continuing to fight for justice, I filed a Petition for Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2023. Despite presenting evidence of innocence and violations of my constitutional rights, my efforts were repeatedly hindered by procedural barriers. In 2015, my petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied by the U.S. District Court due to alleged untimeliness, disregarding exceptions that should have permitted a proper review of my claims.

Efforts to challenge these rulings and introduce new evidence were met with judicial bias and procedural hindrances. Additionally, my complaints against individuals involved in my trial for perjury and misconduct were ignored, further indicating the system's reluctance to self-scrutinize.

This journey through various legal stages, from post-conviction discovery to appeals and a petition to the Supreme Court, reflects the daunting challenges faced by individuals within the legal system, especially when confronting procedural and institutional obstacles. Read more