|
Knights
in Dirty
Armour
" Deliberate
Improprieties "
UNITED
STATE vs BROWN
73F 3d
488 (First Circuit 1988)
“Never can we allow
prosecutors – or judges – to make up the law as they go
along.”
This is
exactly what did happen during the first trial, and it was
reversed by the Court of
Criminal
Appeals. Déjà vu
trial two.
In Parker v State, 1996 OK CR 19 917 P2d 980,
the presiding Oklahoma Supreme
Court Judge Johnson wrote about the requirements of
due process of law:
“The United States and Oklahoma Constitutions require
that
an accused person be informed of the charges
against
which he must defend. This requirement
is
rooted in
the Due Process clauses of both constitions."
U.S.
Const. Amends. VI, XVI: Oklahoma Const Article
2§§7,20.
“This notice requirement allows an accused to
prepare an adequate defense to the
charge against him
as
it informs him of what he must prepare to meet.
Simply put, Due Process
requires that a
defendant
have
notice of the crime with which he is
charged.
“We
would caution prosecutors to be careful and to
adequately
plead acts sufficient to give notice as required by
statute.
“A defendant must be given notice of the nature and cause
a
meaningful opportunity to prepare a
defense."
(Staggs
v State, 804 P2d 456(1991) citing Jackson v Virginia,
100
Supreme Court 195 (1979).
“The test of sufficiency of an information (indictment)
is
whether it alleges every
element of the offense intended
to
be charged, and sufficiently appraises (the) defendant
of
what
he must be prepared to meet.”
Jones
v. State 229 P.2d 613 [1951]
37
“The State
should have amended the information
indictment]prior
to trial. There was no
need* to wait
untill
he conclusion of the trial to amend the information
[indictment]."
“It is
axiomatic that a conviction upon a charge not
made or
upon a charge not tried constitutes a denial
of
Due.Process. When such a conviction occurs in a state
trial,
it cannot constitutionally stand."
(Jackson v Virginia, 1979) { *No excuse! In 2004 }
John
Schoonover was not prosecuted for the crime of accessory to a
felony by indictment as required by State and Federal
statutes. John
Schoonover was not provided a preliminary hearing on the charge of
“Accessory to a felony after the fact” as required by the
statutes28.
John Schoonover had no clue – nor did his attorneys or jury
have any clue – that he was going to be charged with a seperate
crime at the conclusion of the trial: “Accessory after the
fact”. John
Schoonover had been charged for three and one half years with one
crime, and now the jury was going to be told to convict him of
this other crime30.
April
24th, 2003, Judge Post introduced instructions to the
jury to find John Schoonover guilty of accessory to a felony – in
addition to the charge of first degree murder – after the trial
had ended.
Mr.
Keesling, an attorney for John Schoonover, questioned that the
defense had been given no notice of the fact that they needed to
defend against this additional separate charge of accessory as it
could be found nowhere in the records. Thus, no defense had been
presented to face this phantom charge.
Judge
Post is not one to be interrupted when she is talking. She started her answer to
Mr. Keesling when Ramsey interrupted, “Judge, I requested it on
the 21st of April”. Judge Post, oblivious to
the interruption, continued that she had “prepared the instruction
sua sponte” (on her own initiative, on the spur of the
moment).
“A defendant must be
given notice of the nature and
cause
of the accusation against him and a meaningful
opportunity
to prepare a defense."
It can only be an incompetent judge or prosecutor that
plead ignorance and violate this basic state and federal
constitution law.
38
Judge
Post was unaware that Chuck Ramsey had, in fact, filed the charge
of accessory on April 21st, as he had attempted to
interrupt and tell her.
Mr.
Ramsey had deliberately not notified anyone that
his full intentions were to try John on one charge, then have
Judge Post instruct the jury to convict John on a separate
charge. He did not
even notify Judge Post of this fact, or she would not have
unwittingly conspired in concert with him in duplicating his
secret indictment “sua sponte”.
Judge
Post ‘justified’ her act of violating our constitution,
stating:
“There
was testimony of a time delay between the time
when
the states evidence was that the trauma occured to
the deceased [sic] child and the time
they
actually arrived... at the Mayes County Health
Center."
This
“time delay” cannot exist.
Nora Stanart testified she was talking on the phone with
Ben at 6:30 pm. Dr.
Delong testified he admitted Ben at 7:00 pm. Judge Post cannot claim
ignorance that she did not know that there is nineteen miles
distance between the Schoonover’s residence and the hospital (four
miles of which is dirt road, three miles of which is city
streets). Moreover,
no one testified to any “time delay”. Ramsey and only Ramsey
created forty-five minutes between the trauma (6:30 pm) and the
first phone call (AT&T cell) en route to the
hospital.
Subterfuge was Ramsey’s only way of winning. Ramsey, and only Ramsey created this
“time delay” of forty-five minutes out of thin air and Judge Post
was gullible enough to believe his theatrics.
Arguendo: If this was an acceptable practice of
proper law, then it was extremely prejudicial against Marie. She too, should be given
the same charge. As
Post had clearly pointed out, “The jurors are the sole fact
finders in this case.”
To deny the juror’s their role to make the decision
themselves circumvents their purpose. It clearly shows plain
prejudice.
The
jurors were denied the option to believe that Marie was either on
the telephone, as Nora Stanart testified, or outside, as Ms
Millikin testified.
The jurors were also denied the right to believe Stephen
and Debbie Hunter’s testimony that Marie was on the telephone with
Nora Stanart when the accident happened. In her blind ignorance
Judge Post illegally condemned two people on the word of a
prosecutor who has the insidious capability of making people
believe an impossible horror story. A talent greater than Mary
Shelly’s.
39
All the
evidence presented during the trial was that Marie was either
outside feeding the chickens, or on the telephone with Nora
Stanart when the accident happened. All of the evidence
presented was that Marie was not present when Ben was
injured. Marie could
not even be a witness to it.
Judge
Post’s bias sua sponte decision was her insidious way of
unequivocally depriving Marie of having any kind of fair
trail.31
Back
/ / Home
| 
