Case Timeline:
1.
HCT. pg. 18-19 "Kenneth Muhammad testimony"- Upkins cross examined Mr. Muhammad on trial attorneys on the discovery violation of 9 days committed by the state in the submission of the evidence (checks) the eve of trial. My expert was subpoenaed by the state with minutes, so I had no expert at trial.
Tomeka Upkins introduced Mr. Harris, a retired fingerprint expert by way of her job of more than 25 years. Mr. Harris contacted Muhammad once and never excepted another call from Kenneth Muhammad and 7 months later Mr. Harris dies.
TT. pg. 34-35
Mr. Muhammad then received $1100 as a separate payment to specifically hire an expert, and all this is during the course of appeal. The appeal eventually became final while I'm expecting an expert, without the consideration of an expert.
Kenneth Muhammad lied under oath during Upkins habeas corpus hearing about hiring an expert, yet admit that he doesn't know a phone number, a name, and that he never informed me of any kind of a report.
Overall he failed to file ineffective assistance of counsel against Jennifer Knight and had no intentions of hitting me an expert. 14 years later today and I've yet to have the evidence examined by my own defense and I'm sure I've attempted more times in this case than many.
2.
TT. = trial transcript
HCT. =habeas corpus transcript
Pg. = Page
TT. pg. 167, pg. 175-178.
"Det. Garner testimony"- detective testified that Ms. James could not identify the perpetrators if she saw them in the future and alleged to have spoken with expert Albert Rowland of GBI on November 7, 2008, and learned that a print belonging to Upkins was discovered.
See GBI forensic report, Albert Rowland wasn't assigned to this case until November 12th, and then concluded his report the 14th. Mr. Rowland was not even assigned to the case at the time. detective declined a photo array after she started they she would not be able to identify the 2 suspects if she saw them in the future, a match to her 911 call, and written statement.
Detective wasn't truthful about when he submitted the checks to be processed. The day of the incident was 5/2/08 and the professor received the checks on 5/16/08. There was no inventory, no proof perseverance, no proof of location, nor of temperature control involving the handling of the only evidence in this case.
The detective did not see the package he used to put in the checks from the scene in. The evidence processor, Edward Reece ,provided the envelope containing the evidence.
TT. pg. 310-315 "Processor Edward Reece"- Ms. Gaines was afis qualified, yet she was bypassed awaiting months to send checks to GBI which they received October 21, 2008, but on September 9, 2008 someone entered the envelope to contact the checks, yet they didn't sign their name, so I want able to call on whoever dealt with this evidence, before GBI identified me as a suspect.
The print was those from place to place. Everytime the envelope containing the evidence is opened, the person must sign and date their name to possibly testify to their handling of the evidence, and here is where a breakage within the chain of custody transpired. The handling of this case was described to be unique by the processor.
Georgia, a state in the southeastern United States, has seen its share of wrongful convictions. Here are some facts about Georgia and wrongful convictions:
1. **Innocence Projects**: Georgia has an active Innocence Project, which works to exonerate wrongfully convicted individuals through DNA testing and other means. The Georgia Innocence Project has helped to overturn convictions based on new evidence and uncover flaws in the criminal justice system.
2. **High Profile Cases**: Georgia has had several high-profile cases of wrongful convictions garnering national attention. These cases often highlight issues such as eyewitness misidentification, coerced confessions, and inadequate legal representation.
3. **DNA Exonerations**: Like many states, Georgia has had cases where DNA evidence has exonerated individuals who were wrongfully convicted. DNA testing has played a crucial role in overturning convictions and revealing flaws in the criminal justice system.
4. **Reforms**: Over the years, Georgia has implemented reforms aimed at preventing wrongful convictions and improving the fairness of its criminal justice system. These reforms include changes in eyewitness identification procedures, recording of interrogations, and access to post-conviction DNA testing.
5. **Compensation for the Wrongfully Convicted**: In Georgia, individuals who have been wrongfully convicted and later exonerated may be eligible for compensation. The state has laws in place to provide financial compensation, although the process can vary and may involve legal challenges.
6. **Ongoing Challenges**: Despite efforts to address wrongful convictions, challenges persist in Georgia and across the country. Issues such as racial bias, flawed forensic evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct continue to contribute to wrongful convictions and undermine confidence in the justice system.
Check out Kevin's Forensic File here:
Case discrepancies refer to inconsistencies, contradictions, or irregularities within legal proceedings or investigations. These variations can occur in witness testimonies, evidence collection and handling, legal procedures, or any other aspect of a case. Such discrepancies can have significant implications for the outcome of a case and the administration of justice. Here are some common types of case discrepancies:
1. **Witness Testimony**: Discrepancies often arise between witness testimonies, particularly in cases where multiple witnesses provide conflicting accounts of events. These differences may stem from factors such as memory biases, perception errors, or external influences.
2. **Evidence Handling**: Inaccuracies or lapses in evidence handling can lead to discrepancies in the chain of custody, compromising the integrity of evidence presented in court. Mishandling of evidence can include failure to properly document its movement, contamination, tampering, or loss.
3. **Legal Procedures**: Discrepancies may occur due to errors or inconsistencies in legal procedures followed during the investigation, trial, or appeals process. This can include failures to adhere to due process rights, improper application of laws or rules, or deviations from established protocols.
4. **Forensic Analysis**: Discrepancies may arise in forensic analysis, such as discrepancies between forensic reports, conflicting interpretations of evidence by experts, or inaccuracies in forensic testing methods.
5. **Documentation and Record-Keeping**: Inadequate documentation or discrepancies in records maintained by law enforcement agencies, legal teams, or court officials can lead to confusion or inconsistencies in the case timeline, evidence log, or other essential documents.
Addressing case discrepancies requires thorough investigation, critical analysis, and attention to detail. Legal professionals, investigators, and experts must carefully review all aspects of the case to identify and resolve any inconsistencies. Resolving discrepancies is crucial for ensuring fair and just outcomes in legal proceedings and upholding the integrity of the justice system.
Misconduct allegations against prosecutors can include issues such as:
1. **Withholding Evidence**: Failure to disclose exculpatory evidence (evidence that could potentially clear a defendant of guilt) to the defense, which is a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights.
2. **Coercive Tactics**: The use of coercive or improper tactics during interrogations, such as threats or promises, to secure confessions or plea deals.
3. **Prosecutorial Misconduct in Court**: Engaging in improper behavior during court proceedings, such as making misleading statements, misrepresenting evidence, or engaging in prejudicial arguments.
4. **Racial Bias**: Allegations of racial bias in charging decisions, jury selection, or other aspects of prosecution.
5. **Excessive Sentencing**: Pursuing disproportionately harsh sentences or advocating for excessive punishment in cases.
It's important to emphasize that allegations of misconduct are serious and require thorough investigation and appropriate accountability measures. In cases where misconduct is substantiated, it can undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system and lead to wrongful convictions or other miscarriages of justice.
Inadequate representation is a significant factor in wrongful convictions, as it can lead to miscarriages of justice and individuals being convicted for crimes they did not commit. When defendants do not receive effective legal representation, they may be more vulnerable to errors, biases, and procedural injustices within the criminal justice system.
Here are some ways inadequate representation can contribute to wrongful convictions:
1. **Lack of Legal Expertise**: Defendants who are not provided with competent legal counsel may not receive the benefit of thorough investigation, legal analysis, and effective advocacy in their defense. This can result in critical evidence being overlooked, legal defenses not being raised, or strategic errors in trial proceedings.
2. **Limited Resources**: Defendants who cannot afford to hire their own attorneys may be assigned public defenders or legal aid attorneys who are often overburdened with caseloads and limited resources. As a result, they may not have sufficient time or resources to devote to each case, potentially leading to inadequate preparation and representation.
3. **Ineffective Counsel**: In some cases, appointed defense attorneys may lack the necessary experience, expertise, or dedication to provide effective representation. This can manifest in various ways, such as failing to conduct thorough investigations, inadequately preparing for trial, or providing poor legal advice to the defendant.
4. **Failure to Challenge Evidence**: Inadequate representation may result in defense attorneys failing to challenge unreliable or improperly obtained evidence, such as coerced confessions, eyewitness misidentifications, or flawed forensic analysis. Without effective challenges to such evidence, defendants may be wrongfully convicted based on faulty or incomplete information.
5. **Inadequate Appeals Process**: Even after conviction, inadequate representation can persist during the appeals process, where defendants may not receive competent legal assistance in challenging their convictions or presenting new evidence of innocence.
Addressing inadequate representation requires systemic reforms to ensure that all defendants have access to competent and effective legal counsel, regardless of their financial means. This includes measures such as improving funding for indigent defense, reducing caseloads for public defenders, implementing standards for attorney competency, and providing resources for post-conviction review and exoneration efforts. By prioritizing the quality of legal representation, the criminal justice system can help prevent wrongful convictions and uphold the principles of fairness and justice.
©Copyright. All rights reserved.
We need your consent to load the translations
We use a third-party service to translate the website content that may collect data about your activity. Please review the details and accept the service to view the translations.