¹  “Prosecutors may not make material misstatements of fact and must limit his closing argument to evidence on   the record.”

Floyd v Meachum 907 F2d 347(2^nd Circuit 1990)

   “Repeated and escalating misconduct was reversible error because prosecutor misconduct was severe, and it was  not clear or probable that defendant(s) would have been convicted in absence of misconduct.”

²  “Defendant is guaranteed opportunity to advance theory of the case from defense perspective.”

          U.S. v Roberts 119 F3d 1006 (1^st Circuit 1997)

³  “Prosecutors improper misquotation of key defense witness resulted in a due process violation because

   consequences of the misstatements were severe, and there was no certainty that the jury would have convicted  absent misstatements.  Comments were directly contrary to evidence.”

                    U.S. v Watson 171 F3d 695 (D.C. Circuit 1999)

^4/5 “Error when government (Ramsey) used inflammatory characterization of defendant(s).”

                    U.S. v Degeratto 876 F2d 576 (7^th Circuit 1989)

      Marie knew nothing of the adoption article and John only commented on a unique group of adopted babies. 

   No “comparisons” were ever made and this fiction “comparison” was now credited to Marie.  Two years of  research has not yielded such a gross example of flagrant prosecutorial misconduct.

59

⁶  “Prosecutors reference to defendants silence which implied that silence is inconsistent with innocence is  reversible error.”

                    Doyle v Ohio 426 US 610 (1976)

   Ramsey also called attention to defendant(s) not testifying; is also reversible error.

                    U.S. v Griffith 118 F3d (5^th Circuit 1997)

⁷  “Prosecutors intentional remarks that defendant’s decision to meet with counsel immediately after incident  implied guilt were reversible error.”

                    Sizemore v Fletcher 921 F2d 667 (6^th Circuit 1990)

⁸  Wilson v. State.  This case law on gruesome photographs was taken during a prison shakedown.

⁹  See 16.

¹⁰ “The law is clear that it is reversible error to put the defendant’s reputation as an issue of evidence.”

                    Harvell v State 479 P2d 586 (1971)

                    Douglas v State 951 P2d 651 (1997)

   “The elicited testimony served no function but to directly prejudice both defendants.”

                    Lalli v State 870 P2d 175 (1994)

 “The testimony only attacked the (Schoonover’s) character.  The irrelevant testimony should never have been  allowed.”

                    Hawkins v State 891 P2d 586 (1994) 12 O.S. 2001§2401

60

¹¹ Mr Ramsey’s extremely poor judgment in supporting the perjured Probable Cause Affidavit of George Klatt put  himself in the position of ‘no way out’.  The accidental death of a child and the sending of two innocent people to  prison to die held less importance than the façade of his reputation.  His decision constituted voluntary  conspiracy with George Klatt and his perjured Probable Cause Affidavit. 

Both “knowingly violated the law”.

                    Fletcher v Kalina 93 F3d 653 (9^th Circuit 1996)

                    Briggs v Malley 784 F2d 715 (1^st Circuit 1984)

                    Malley v Briggs 106 Supreme Court 1092 (1986)

¹³ “It is highly improper for a prosecutor to call a defendant a liar.”

                    U.S. v Rodrigues-de Jesus 202 F3d 482 (1^st Circuit 2000)

   “It is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor to express his personal belief on opinion as to the truth or falsity  of any testimony or evidence of the guilt of the defendant.”

                    Lewis v State 569 P2d 488

 “Where the prosecutor’s remarks are improper and the evidence is marginal, the conviction will be reversed.”

                    Splain, 545 F2d 1135

¹⁴ Contrapuntal quotes primarily from U.S. v Doe F2d 488 (1^st Circuit) and American Bar Association Canon Rules of Ethics.

¹⁵ “Where simply as a result of poverty, a defendant is denied the opportunity to participate meaningfully in a judicial proceeding in which (her) liberty is a stake.”

             Ake v Oklahoma 470 U.S., 68, 105 Supreme Court 187 (1985)

                   Oklahoma Constitution Article 2§2§6

                    McMillion v State 742 P2d 1158 (1987)

   “State can no more discriminate on account of poverty than on account of religion, race, or color.”

                    U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV

61

¹⁶ “Suppression of favorable evidence violates due process.”

                    U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV

                    Brady v Maryland 373 U.S. 83 Supreme Court 1194 (1963)

   “Under Brady, an inadvertent nondisclosure has the same impact on the fairness of the proceeding as deliberate  concealment.”

^17/18 Not merely a ‘misstatement’, it is Ramsey’s way of creating false memories in the jury.  This noumenon was

   studied in great length in the Norton Publication “Cognition” by Daniel Reisberg under the subject of “Implicit  Memory and the Illusion of Truth.  The Result was a Propagandist’s Dream”.

      Example; Scenario:  Ramsey could ask you to remember that you read in Part V that “The Schoonover’s claimed  to have raised sixteen foster children in Idaho since 1795”.  Based on this reminder, you now know (think) that  John and Marie have had experience “as they claim” raising other’s children for twenty five years. 

      Now that you  are reminded of this, Ramsey would then tell you as gospel, “You’ve been lied to, ladies and gentlemen.  These  two defendants were never in Idaho!”

      Since you are not allowed to take notes, you cannot check Part V and confirm who it was that actually deceived  you into believing a falsehood with a truth; “These two defendants were never in Idaho”.  John had the child care  license for ten years – in Idaho – before he met Marie, who was never in Idaho.  Ramsey would tell just enough  truth to convince an unsuspecting jury to believe a lie.

      “A Propagandist’s Dream”, Cognition, ©1997, W W Norton.

¹⁹ “Fatal Pediatric Head Injuries Caused by Short-Distance Falls”, John Plunkett MD,   American Journal of Forensic

   Medicine and Pathology 22(1):1-12, 2001.

62

²⁰ “Biomechanics and Neuropathology of Paediatric Head Injury”, A K Ommaya, W Goldsmith, L Thibault, British  Journal of Neurosurgery 2002 16(3):220-242.  Twenty two pages of data and physics including the 30 MPH auto  accident that killed one of two restrained boys.  Contains 126 references from around the world. Concerning “Intentional Traumatic Brain Injury”, “The two most important corroborative factors in the diagnosis of abuse (are) the presence of multiple injuries and an inadequate explanation for the injuries.”

(Benjamin had  none.)

²¹ Kirschner, R H, Stein, R, AJDC 139:873-875 Sept 1985.

²² Earlier in the trial, the subject of Ramsey losing his job if he lost the case was made an issue.

²³ Article II§61 Oklahoma Constitution:  “The Courts of Justice of the State shall be open to every person, and speedy and certain remedy afforded for every wrong and every injury to person, property or reputation; and right and justice shall be administered without Sale, Denial, Delay, or Prejudice.”

      Article VI U.S. Constitution:  “The accused is to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in (her) favor.” 

   (See note 25)

²⁴ Medico-Legal Aspects of Childhood Head Injuries, http://www.aans.org/journals/onlinei/oct99/7-4-4.html

²⁵ “Government interference with defendants right to present a defense, including calling defense witnesses,  violates the Constitution.”

²⁶ “Repeated and escalating misconduct was reversible error because prosecutor misconduct was severe … and it was not clear or probable that defendants would have been convicted in absence of misconduct.”

                    Floyd V Meachum 907 F2d 347 (3^rd Circuit, 1990)

                                                   63

           ²⁷ Boyle v Million 201 F3d 711 (6^th Circuit, 2000)

         U.S. v Francis 170 F3d 546 (6^th Circuit, 1999)

         United States v Carroll 26 F3d 1380 (6^th Circuit, 1994)

         Berger v U.S. 295 US 78 55 Supreme Court 629 (1935)

 “It is error for counsel to make a statement in closing argument

 unsupported by evidence, to admit mistaken evidence, or to

misquote a witness testimony.”

                                      U.S. v Watson 171 F3d 695 (D.C. Circuit 1999)

                       (Ramsey committed all three multiple times.)

²⁸ Title 22§2 and Article II§17, Oklahoma Constitution.

²⁹ Title 22§258 Article II, Oklahoma Constitution, and U.S. Constitution   Amendments VI and XIV.

³⁰ Case CF 1999 (Mayes County) November 1999, charged with First Degree Murder, 21 OS Supp 1988§701(C).  At

   conclusion of trial, charged with Accessory to a Felony, 21 OS 173, April 24^th, 2003.

³¹ Not only was the charge filed by Judge Post in violation of Statutes in notes 28 and 29, the charge was made six months after the statute of limitation had passed.

      Title 22 OS§152(G), “A prosecution for a public offense must be commenced within three years.  Where one is charged with an offense which is not barred by limitation, but is convicted of a lesser included offense which is  so barred, that he is entitled to discharge.”  22 C.J.5.2 Criminal Law §.

      Little difference than dealing a card from up her sleeve, from another deck.

³² “Allen charge coercive when jury returned guilty verdict only 15 minutes after charge.”

          U.S. v Webb 816 F2d 1263 (8^th Circuit, 1987)

 “Indica of pressure on jury.”

          U.S. v Foster, 711 F2d 871 (9^th Circuit, 1983)

⁶⁴

³³ “Abuse in giving Allen because jurors not told that they could hold onto their beliefs even if it resulted in a hung jury; instead only told that they had to be unanimous.”

          Weaver v Thompson 197 F3d 359 (9^th Circuit, 1999)

³⁴ Quote from U.S. v Jannottie 673 F2d 578 (3^rd Circuit, 1982).

³⁵ Hicks v Oklahoma 447 U.S. 343 100 Supreme Court 2227 (1980).

Rwkida@vfwonline.net

                              Back  / Next  / Home