Knights in Dirty Armour  II

Chapter VIII

POST CONVICTION RELIEF

BY KEVIN ADAMS, ATTORNEY

Kevin Adams wrote a very efficient (and of course professional) P.C.R. for Marie.  He raised two issues, both are “Constitution” issues warranting reversal of the conviction of Marie. 

They are, Proposition No. 1:  “Ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel: failure of trial counsel to object to inadmissible hearsay during the trial and failure of appellate counsel to raise the ineffective assistance claim against trial counsel on appeal for his failure to object.”

This is a valid issue; James Rowan and Catrina Conrad Legler were “ineffective” and it is left at that.  Why they were “ineffective” is, in this layman’s mind, is an important issue.  Are they simply less than quality attorneys?  No, they are not.  James Rowan is a very good attorney as is Catrina Conrad Legler.  If I leave the world with the comment that these two attorneys are not worth their salt it is a taint to their rather well deserved excellent reputation.  They were “ineffective” because their hands were tied behind their backs by the Court and rules of Oklahoma pertaining to Indigent Defense Attorneys paid by the state. 

I will omit all the legal nomenclature and caselaw as it would be redundantly superfluous to what I have already written.  Suffice it to say Kevin Adam’s Brief was well written and brings out the issue of the Probable Cause Affidavit and an expansion of the notarized statement of Nora Stanart concerning Gilda Marie’s factual location far removed from Benjamin when he suffered his trauma.  He does point out facts and evidence elucidating Marie’s actual factual innocence. 

1

In the former, James Rowan objected numerous times and was ignored.  He was cautioned by the court not to keep interrupting.  He asked for a mistrial because he was not allowed to present a defense.  He was not allowed to show how Benjamin received his injury the evening October 29, 1999 from a backward fall off a piece of furniture as described by Dr. Krouse.  Judge Post ruled that he could not talk of furniture in that house because no evidence had been brought by the state that there was any furniture for Benjamin to fall from.  Judge Post simply gagged him; put a dirty sock in his mouth.  That made him “Ineffective” in defending Little Insignificant (and innocent) Marie.

Katrina Conrad Legler and her incompetence as an attorney:

Hardly.  I read her appeal brief.  Rather lengthy and covered most of the issues but “Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel” because or whatever reasons will remain unknown, and one can only speculate but I do believe that she would be scoffed at if the attempted to label James Rowan as “ineffective” when it is known by the record he did all he was allowed to do by Judge Post with her sock in his mouth. 

James Rowan is a fine honourable attorney.  His only personal impediment was a recent physical injury which disabled him from moving like a jackrabbit when Judge Post called him and Judge Post had no patience for his slow mobility and let all know that; she also scoffed at Kevin Adams for “talking” with his hands as some people do.  Even on the telephone.  She did not object to Mr. Ramsey’s hands over his head describing the volcanic activity of “Brains gushing out the top of his head.”    

And, of course, it is terribly unethical to point out faults in a judge, no matter how bad they are.  An example of that is the recorder who would not report her judge for playing with himself with sex toys while sitting in trial, “I didn’t want to be found dead in a ditch somewhere.”  His colleagues didn’t prosecute him; he quietly retired.  Fortunately, there are factually few judges like him and Dynda Post.

2

Catrina Conrad Legler quoted the late Patrick Crawley (Attorney General) concerning the “Two inch fracture” and “The toddlers head was busted open.”  Treated as gospel, this fracture so large and top of his head “busted open” is rather difficult to accept as an accident but Catrina does believe that Marie is innocent.  I would not accept such a description as an accident.  Being directly involved I knew there was no fracture at all when I carried Benjamin into the hospital.  The suppressed radiologist’s report that there was no fracture bore this out as fact.  Nor was there the tiny bruise on his hip where they had laid what I assume was a portable oxygen tank; it was the right colour and size and a bruise did develop where it was placed. 

I believed that when Charles Ramsey ranted and waived his hands in volcanic activity to the jury that Benjamin’s “Brains were gushing out the top of his head” was simply a figment of his wild imagination.  It is so bizarre to conceive that someone would actually bash open a child’s head, just plain morbid when done in a hospital room, to create evidence of a murder to cover up for ones perjury on a Probable Cause Affidavit.  Then take photos for “show and tell” to State’s witnesses prior to trial:  “This is what happened when John Beat Benjamin’s head against the bedpost.” 

When I wrote Catrina Legler about the discrepancy of the “Two inch fracture” by the late Attorney General Patrick Crawley, she was disallowed, by OIDS to write a rebuttal of such a statement being in error.  The Court of Criminal Appeals did not scrutinize what was not noted and had no way of knowing that such a fracture did not exist before Benjamin entered St. Francis Hospital and became, as George Klatt stated, “Property of the State.” 

This “Two Inch Fracture” went uncontested and if it were fact, as the Court of Criminal Appeals believed, I would side with them as such a fracture is not possible in any normal non-inflicted household fall on carpet. 

3

Proposition 2:

“RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST ME”

This is a Constitutional issue we should all be aware of as it is in the Constitution, 6^th Amendment. 

This is a conundrum which is why what is called a “Daubert” hearing should have been held by the Court.  If not asked for by defense attorneys, which it was, it would have been held sua-sponte by a competent judge as caselaw, which I will not cite here, dictates. 

This would have solved the conflict created by Judge Post in disallowing separate trials.  Marie has the Constitutional Right to confront witnesses against her.  As I stated I was outside she had the right to call me as a witness and confront me concerning that statement and whatever else information/evidence concerning the events of that fateful evening. 

I was charged with the same (non-existent) crime as Marie.  (“John confessed to killing Ben…etc…” Probable Cause Affidavit sworn to by George Klatt). Thus I also had a Constitutional Right:  “Not to testify.”  I did not exercise this “Right” as I was not called to testify.  Had there properly been separate trials I would have been called to testify and could not refuse to do so even if I so elected.

Judge Post was determined to send someone to prison for murder when she publicly declared, before the trial, that Benjamin was a “Murder Victim.”  When it became obvious she could not “get” me, she focused on Marie as her scapegoat and charged me, after the trial, with the bogus charge of “Accessory After The Fact” when there was no evidence whatever to warrant such a fictitious charge.  This phony charge, put to the jury, declared Marie as a murderer.

4

Judge Post then regrettably informed Charles Ramsey, when he asked, that she could not increase the seven year sentence on this bogus charge, as he requested, but she would refuse bail.  This guaranteed me silence for two more years in prison when I should have been out and able to rebut the “fracture” discrepancy; submit a pro-se for Marie on her appeal and it is near impossible that they would have affirmed her conviction.   Counting all “good time” that I had earned, that was denied by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, I had served that seven year sentence before I was sent to prison on the bogus charge by Judge Post. 

If she will do that to me, she will do that to others and I have found a couple of those “others” thanks to her putting me in the same cage with them.

My primary goal is Justice For Marie.  Charles Ramsey harped to the jury “Justice for little Benjamin” when what happened to Benjamin was a tragic accident.  I seek “Justice For Marie!” In memory of our little boy.  And I will not “Walk away in ignorance” when I receive that “Justice For Marie” as my eyes have been opened to other atrocities and, one at a time, until I am downed by a heart attack or assassins bullet, I will continue to make little dents in court house  corruption and link some of my findings from this website to a new one I have purchased, judicialjackasses.com.

Lao Tzu or Confucius, I cannot remember which, said, “To seek vengeance, first go dig two graves.”  Though I may be digging mine for an unknown assassin like Jeremy Reed/Jones, of whom I was in the same cell with, by the way, I am not seeking vindictive vengeance.  I am seeking Justice.  We have all seen the statues, Justice stands, with the exception of one in old Carson City Nevada, blindfolded.  I have no control how her sword falls when one perverts her scales.   

The Pro-se Post Conviction Relief documents filed in Mayes County Oklahoma October 14, 2005, are verbatim in their entirety in the following chapter:

5

Knights in Dirty Armour II

Chapter IX

POST CONVICTION RELIEF

FILED IN MAYES COUNTY

14 OCTOBER 2005

EXCERPTS FROM POST CONVICTION RELIEF

BY KEVIN ADAMS

“There existed evidence that Mrs. Schoonover’s counsel could have confronted John Schoonover concerning whether he killed Benjamin Schoonover.  In the November 16 1999 affidavit filed by George Klatt, Officer Klatt swears that he was told by Judy Girdner that on October 31 1999 she overheard John admit that he killed Benjamin.  Gilda never had an opportunity to confront John Schoonover on whether he made that statement or not because John Schoonover was allowed to establish his presence outside through the introduction of hearsay statements.”  These hearsay statements’ origination was John Schoonover himself and should not have been allowed.  

“The standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel is two-pronged: 

1, Appellant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient,

2, Appellant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense.  There is a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional conduct.  I.e.; appellate must overcome the presumption that under the circumstances, counsel’s conduct was sound trial strategy.”

6

Kevin Adams called John Schoonover into his office and handed him a copy of the limited Post Conviction Relief application raising only two issues.  Knowing John Schoonover is an analytic reader Kevin Adams encouraged John Schoonover to advise Gilda Marie Schoonover, a woman easily deceived by the noumenomous nomenclature of the legal profession   to sign the documents as they were written when she is in fact non est factum.

Kevin Adams wrote an excellent P.C.R. raising the two issues of “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel” and “Violation of (Marie’s) Right to Confrontation,” which is guaranteed by the 6^th Amendment of our Constitution.  Inserted is also the admission of “Hearsay Statements” which are not admissible which violates Oklahoma Statute section 2808. John Schoonover approved of what he had read that was written by Kevin Adams and advised the defendant Gilda Marie Schoonover that Kevin Adams was bringing them for her to sign and further advised the defendant to sign the documents he had read.  Such limiting of the issues to these two, if this was all that was wrong, should result in relief for Gilda Marie.  It totally ignores the flagrant violations of our laws by Prosecutor Charles Ramsey, his friend George Klatt and Judge Dynda Post. 

At that time John Schoonover again asked that Kevin Adams use as additional issues Prosecutorial Misconduct and Abuse of Judicial Discretion.  Kevin Adams stated he would not do so.  This limiting of issues by Kevin Adams clearly shows his deficient performance and definitely sells his client for the benefit of those “bedpartner” colleagues whom he must work with or risk ridicule by them for “turning” on one of his own kind.  John Schoonover would prepare a “supplemental” to the Post Conviction Relief as a Friend of The Court and Justice, for his wife, raising the critical issues of Extreme Prosecutorial Misconduct and Abuse of Judicial Discretion without the fear that governed Kevin Adams. 

7

 The Defendant, Gilda Marie Schoonover, had placed her total faith in the judgment of her husband and she signed the documents placed before her by Kevin Adams.  After the signed documents were filed did the defendant receive a copy which she read to John Schoonover and it was NOT one of the original documents meeting any approval of the defendant’s husband, John Schoonover, that Kevin Adams used to get his influence for the defendant to sign I call it a

“Quitter Statement:”

“I have read the foregoing application and assignments of error and hereby state under oath that there are no other grounds upon I wish to attack the judgment and sentencing of which I am presently convicted.  I realize that I cannot later raise or assess any reason or ground known to me at this time or which could have been discovered by me by the exercise of reasonable diligence.  I further realize that I am not entitled to file a second or subsequent application for Post Conviction Relief based upon fact within my knowledge or which I could discover with reasonable diligence at this time.”

This document is in the best interests only of George Klatt, Charles Ramsey and Dynda Post!  Kevin Adams places them in the plush seat of the hansom (with himself) and kicks his client Gilda Marie Schoonover and Our Lady of Justice into the old Ford’s open rumble seat naked into the foulest of weather!

“I know not what course others may take but the course I choose is to give Marie Justice or give me death.  I am not a coward.”  God bless Patrick Henry for his morals and courage. 

8

So, why pursue issues such as “Prosecutor Misconduct” and “Judicial Indiscretions” if they are not absolutely necessary for the release of innocent Marie?  Crooked officials are a problem.  Anywhere.  The Quakers have an axiom, and from memory, “When one recognizes a problem, one cannot walk away from it in ignorance.”  It is not vindictiveness or vengeance; it is that such officials do not limit themselves to sending unjustly only one innocent victim to prison illegally. Janet Reno told me 5% are discovered through DNA alone.  “And that’s way too many,” she added.  There are more than 1,000 women inmates in Mabel Basset Prison in McLoud Oklahoma.  Even with such large numbers, the math is not difficult.  Judge Post put this innocent victim in a similar prison.  I have met others in prison and I cannot walk away in ignorance.  To have any respect for Justice, I must make what dent I can in corruption. 

CERTIFIED MAIL FROM MABEL BASSETT PRISON

{In reference to the prepared “quitter” statement

Judge Dynda Post:

“I wish to void this.  I will not stop this until I am freed for I am innocent; I did not kill my one and only son Benjamin Michael Schoonover.  I was forced to sign this paper; now I want to stop it.  This is not the paper my husband was showed and told me to sign. Kevin Adams has tried to sell me up the river, I won’t allow this.  Even Ramsey has told all of our attorneys and all the jurors he knew I was innocent. But Ramsey had to keep a conviction; he couldn’t get John, so he went after me.       That was told me by Kevin Adams last time I saw him.” 

                               (signed) Gilda Marie Schoonover 404171

                                                     [Mabel Bassett Prison

                                                 McLoud, Oklahoma 74851]

9

FILED IN MAYES COUNTY 14 OCTOBER 2005

Motion to Supplement and Publish

 Comes now the petitioner Gilda Marie Schoonover and respectfully moves this honorable court to supplement the record on a post Conviction Relief application in Case No. CF 1999-271-B submitted and filed with this court on September 30 for reason and authority to wit:

Under the rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, and pursuant to Graves v State, 878 p2d 1075  Okla.  Cr. 1994.

This Petitioner is bringing this Motion to Supplement and Publish.

In asking to Supplement and Publish, it is necessary to:

          1. Include affidavit stating why records need to be supplemented.

          2. State items included in Supplement.

          3. Show how items are necessary for Post Conviction Relief.

          4. Show why items have not been brought previously.

          The requested supplement is necessary to seek and reach the        proper ends of Justice, that is to say:  the truth, not convictions.

          See Canon 5 American Bar Association rules (1926)  

          To further expand, the petitioner is, as can be seen by examination         of events, and an Evidentiary Hearing being held concerning the        improprieties, the Perjured Probable Cause Affidavit, and the later     actions of George Klatt in both this matter and others that were        wrongfully indicted by false affidavits which show probability of innocence.

10

The petitioner has claimed ineffective assistance of both trial and appellant counsel and in support of this Motion to Publish will show in the supplement that counsels were, in additions to reasons brought prior, ineffective by failure to raise issues herein. 

                               See Woodruff v. State 910 p2d 348.

 In support the Petitioner herein prays this honorable court to Supplement and Publish the following;

  Propositions concerning:

          1. Actual innocence.

          2. Ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.

          3. Extreme Prosecutorial Misconduct.

          4. Abuse of Judicial Discretion.

Exhibits

      Exhibit  A, The worldwide published documentary,

 Knights in Dirty    Armour ,      Trafford Publishing Company, Canada, Ireland and U.K. ISBN # 1-41206406-6

      Exhibit  B,  Newspaper article from the Pryor Daily Times.

           (reprinted in the Tulsa Daily World)

11

Counsel herein has also failed to bring forth these issues in this Post Conviction application at bar and these issues are paramount to this application.

As to the exhibits and attachments mentioned, these have not been previously available and the authors will swear by their oath to the factualness of the manuscript; and it should be further noted that no rebuttal of the manuscript, which is both open to the public and available worldwide has ever been brought. 

Therefore, for reasons and authority herein, this Pro-se Petitioner moves this honorable court to allow the supplement herein and enumerated

and Publish as part of this record.
 

                                                For:     Gilda Marie Schoonover

                                              Signed,       John Schoonover

12

FILED IN MAYES COUNTY 14 OCTOBER 2005

Supplemental brief in an application for Post Conviction Relief pursuant to Oklahoma Statute 22 Sec. 1080 seq:

CF 1999-271-B

Comes now the petitioner Gilda Marie Schoonover, an inmate at The Mabel Basset Correctional facility in McLoud, Oklahoma, and respectfully presents this honorable court with the following supplemental brief to supplement an application for Post Conviction Relief presented this honorable court and filed with its clerk on September 30, 2005, Pursuant to reason and authority herein.

This Pro-se applicant further informs this honorable court that she has also filed with this court a motion to supplement pursuant to the rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and to Graves v. State 878 p2d 1075. 

As part of this filing is a claim of actual and factual innocence, it cannot be procedurally barred by either this court, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, or the United States Federal Courts, and further, due to the claim of actual and factual innocence the anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act of time restraint of future Federal Habeas Corpus is void. 

13

Brief in support

As the statement of the case and the statement of facts have been well documented in this Petitioner’s application and brief in chief, the Petitioner would acquiesce with the statement of the case introduced in its entirety, and the statement of facts with the exceptions noted. 

The application presented and filed by Kevin Adams, Attorney tends to disregard the ear witness testimony of Nora Stanart as to John Schoonover’s whereabouts and would place knowledge presented to the jury of Mr. Schoonover not being in the house on “hearsay statements”

While most testimony was hearsay, the testimony of Mrs. Stanart was certainly not hearsay and is consistent throughout the matter at bar.

The petitioner believes she has three additional grounds for relief, and wishes to expand and enlarge one ground filed:

1. Actual Factual Innocence

2. Extreme Prosecutorial Misconduct

3. Abuse of Judicial Discretion

4. Enlargement of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel in connection with the three grounds above.

14

Ground one:

Actual Factual Innocence

When looked at from the entire record spread, and the events following trial in light most favourable to the state,  Mrs. Schoonover’s innocence is quite clear.

When the true record, within consistent statements being brought to light, it becomes clear that the jury, the trier of fact could not have found the defendant guilty, and all elements proved, the reasonable doubt. Jackson v Virginia 443 us 307.

While the state, beyond question, will argue the defendant did not object to false statements (presented in ground two), and that further, defendant could have raised this issue on direct appeal, it was waived.  To this the petitioner will refer this quote to ground four herein, and the ineffective assistance ground in Mr. Adam’s brief and chief.

Further, petitioner cites Hooks v. State, 902 P2d 1120 Ok. Cr. 1995, which states that a petitioner must establish that direct appeal counsel failed to raise issues warranting reversal.

Woodruff v. State 910 P2d 348  Ok. Cr. 1996, the Court of Criminal Appeals gave the exception to res judicata or waiver, by stating that application of the          UNIFORM POST CONVICTION ACT  is limited to claims citing Hooks id., that if appellate counsel is ineffective in raising issues, or did not raise warranted issues the court can reconsider.

In the instant matter, from the evidence presented here in support, it is clear this applies. 

The actual innocence of the petitioner, when truth is considered, as is required by the Cannons of the American and Oklahoma Bar Associations;, becomes much more likely than the false theory of the state, and an obviously partial district attorney (“I can’t try him for anything else so we have to let him go”).  Looking for a crime where there is none.

15

Ground two:

Extreme Prosecutorial Misconduct

It can be seen from recent actions of investigator George Klatt that the claim of the petitioner and John Schoonover that the probable cause affidavit was false, and by presenting it under oath George Klatt likely committed perjury.  To protect his investigator and his own integrity, Mr. Ramsey, the states attorney, can be seen throughout the record giving misleading, false and inflammatory statements.

In his closing misquoting  Dr. Krouse:  “Even Dr. Krawse, the man they paid to come up here, even Dr. Krawse said Benjamin did not get the massive injuries that he had, the busted occipital bone, the tremendous brain swelling, the worse Dr. Barton has ever seen from a fall of 34 inches on a tile floor.” [Tr. 1336]

What Dr. Krouse actually said was, “In some circumstances, I believe that could happen.”  [tr. 1202] and to the question, “Have you seen this happen in your own practice?” the answer was: “Yes.” [tr. 1193]

{This issue is expanded in the Application}

Few people know that President Gerald Ford was adopted.  He was born Leslie Lynch King Junior. Likewise was Wendy’s Dave Thomas adopted.  Benjamin was being adopted.  Jeffrey Dahmer had been adopted.  Jeffrey Dahmer?  Who would adopt Jeffrey Dahmer?  “He was probably a sweet little boy.” They all were.  This statement that Jeffrey Dahmer was probably a sweet little boy, too, was made by co-defendant John Schoonover.

This fact of adoptions, known only by co-defendant John Schoonover at the time, was taken out of context and perverted to a “comparison” by Mr. Ramsey:

“What kind of a man refers to his son as a serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer?  That’s horrible for a man in the process of adopting a little boy he supposedly loves to refer to him as a serial killer.”  [Tr. 1272] This perverted “comparison” was  additionally credited to Gilda Marie Schoonover by Mr. Ramsey:

16

“Two people, Ladies and Gentlemen, that one month earlier (according to Shelly Young) had given him to the end of the month, who had referred to him as Jeffrey Dahmer.”

“Ladies and Gentlemen, that’s important because we are not dealing here in a situation with normal people.  People who compare their children to serial killers are not normal and they do abnormal things.”

McCarty v State, 765 p2d 1215 1219, {Okla. Cr. 1988} In McCarty at 1219  this Court stated “we will not hesitate to reverse a conviction where an appellant establishes that,

1. Certain testimony was in fact misleading,

2. The prosecution knowingly used said testimony, and

3. The testimony was material to guilt or innocence.”

In the instant case the testimony was extremely misleading, the prosecutor knowingly abused the testimony and used it in an extremely misleading manner and in final unrebuttable statements definitely material to guilt or innocence. 

See Brown v. Wainright, 785 F2d 1463 Troedel v. Wainright , 667 F. supp. 1456-1458 (sd Florida, 1986)

Out of Brown v. Wainright, it is of no conquence that the falsehood upon the witnesses credibility rather than directly upon the defendants guilt (Williams v. Griswold 743 F2d 1573 11 cir 1984

Dr. Block testified, after 6 pages of bolstering, and a Daubert hearing requested and denied, and, according to Mr. Ramsey, “And Dr. Block testified that that is very, very important, that you only see that in two types of cases.  One case involving high vehicular impacts, like automobile injuries, automobile crashes and the other time is in child abuse cases, inflicted injury cases.”  [tr. 1341]   This is NOT in Dr. Block’s testimony.                                  

Dr. Block testified at the first trial, “His fracture, which was discovered actually at autopsy…” [or.Tr. 470] modified his testimony in the second trial: “eventually evidence from the hospital record from x-rays that there was indeed a skull fracture.”[Tr. 1051] Is this to correspond with “Brains gushing out the top of his head” by using a fresh x-ray film that Judge Post “Presumes” is the same one used at the first trial that showed no fracture? 

17

Ground 3

Abuse of Judicial Discretion

Title 20 of the Oklahoma statutes at sec. 1401 gives numerous reasons that should lead an unbiased judge to recuse herself.  (“No judge of any court shall sit in any cause or proceedings in which he may be interested,  or that the results in which he may be interested”

Certainly certain recorded actions, as well as many others that can be verified by an evidentiary hearing will show that Judge Post had, at the least, predetermined the guilt of the defendants, and had some interest in the outcome when she publicly makes the statement that Benjamin is “The  Murder Victim”  and there is no shortage of printed publicity in the Claremore newspaper concerning her association and visits with the states key witness Judy Girdner even to the point of helping Judy Girdner raise funds for personal benefit and visiting Jury Girdner in her home with representative Straton Taylor.

By this “predetermination of guilt,”  Judge Post was bias in her opinions and rulings.  As an example, the petitioner cites the following incident: Mrs. Schoonover was denied funds for expert witnesses by Judge Post.  The law is clear even to this lay person; “A defendant must be able to demonstrate need for experts to the trial court or substantial prejudice from lack of such an expert. Ake v. State 778p2d 464 and Tibbs v state 819p2d 1373 1376

The prejudice due to the lack of the requested expert is enormous.  The state was allowed to parade a group of doctors who were not rebutted in full although they themselves, for the most part gave room for doubt, while Judge Post erred in not allowing funds for defense experts to rebut. 

In this matter, it has been shown Mr. Ramsey’s continued use of false interpretations of his own witnesses’ statements.  Had Mrs. Schoonover had an expert, this would not have been possible. 

18

Other defense witnesses were somewhat muzzled (see affidavit of Mrs. Stanart) or not allowed at all.  The most important non allowed witness was John Schoonover, who but for failure of trial court to have held a Jackson v. Deno hearing would have exculpated Mrs. Schoonover.  Failure to have held sua sponte was a clear case of Abuse of Judicial Discretion.

It is noted by the petitioner that there is “generally a presumption of impartiality on the part of judges on the matters before them.”  Pitman v. State, 718 p2d 366 Ok. Cr. 1986, and that “the cold print of the record is the evidence upon which this court must base its decisions, and not accusations lacking support in the record.”  Fuller v. State 751 p2d 766 at 768.

This petitioner has no problem relying on the record to establish prejudice.

No foundation was laid by any one to assume Benjamin was running and fell while running.

“Bruises on the murder victim…”  The referral throughout the trial that Benjamin was the “victim” was justified by Judge Post when she referred to a “victim of a car wreck.”  There was no foundation to “Presume” Benjamin was a “victim,” much less “The Murder Victim” before the trial other than the perjured Probable Cause Affidavit by George Klatt who swore that “John confessed to killing Benjamin.”  If this is fact, the fact that Ramsey proceeded upon, then there is no foundation to even have a trial at all for Mrs. Schoonover.   No foundation to “Presume” the x-ray was the original or had not been altered as it was vastly different from the original on which could not be seen the ‘fresh’ fractures on the old x-ray. 

If further evidence of partiality is needed the following is brought:

Numerous statements without foundation were allowed the state. 

19

45 minutes that did not exist.  Brains squishing and gushing out the top of his head.  Misleading the jury about non-existing bruises because Benjamin’s system began shutting down when in fact his heart beat for two days and in that two days of blood circulation bruises definitely would have developed had there been any child abuse.  

Also, The trial court interjected sua sponte facts(?) not in evidence, such as the non-existent “time delay” of 45 minutes.

Trial court also allowed Dr. Barton to be bolstered as an expert in an area in which he clearly was not. 

Trial counsel seriously failed in this matter as did appellate counsel {see ground 4}

The truth has been lost somewhere among the games, the rituals, the motions, the petty arguments and the rational arguments, the quotes from the press, and the notations for the record.

The outcome of Gilda Marie Schoonover’s trial was long ago decided, the jury was only there to second Ramsey’s and the Trial Court’s pre-trial conclusion/opinion. 

The verdict was meted not by an unbiased jury, but rather by a bias District Attorney who would believe his now obviously tainted investigator George Klatt, if he said the sun would rise in the west tomorrow.  By trial, Mr. Ramsey was in a position of offering the truth or protecting his investigator George Klatt and his own tarnished integrity.  He chose the latter.

The train of truth is already coming.  Those who wish to cover up for the “Knights in Dirty Armour” will be engulfed by those whose primary interest is truth and justice.

Martin Luther King said, “Truth crushed to earth will rise again.  The arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

20

Evidence has been presented to cast serious doubts on the integrity of the trial and Marie’s guilt.  For reasons therefore this conviction, Judgment and Sentence, must be vacated as a matter of Justice and a matter of law.

* * *

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rules  3.11(B) (3) (b) (v) and in accordance with 22 O.S. 1086 provides for enlargement of Post Conviction Relief Petitions/Applications where the issues are so great that it would necessitate restriction of evidence seeking Justice if limited. This petitioner prays this court for necessary enlargement of space in the interests of Justice.

I certify that a true and exact copy of this document was mailed via Flat Rate Priority Mail to:

Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma

Brad Henry, Governor of Oklahoma

[ State Capitol , Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 ]

Charles Ramsey

[ Mayes County Courthouse, Pryor Oklahoma 74361 ]

This document is also published in Part II of

knightsindirtyarmour.com

                                      John Schoonover

                                      RR 1 Box 67

                                      Cleveland Oklahoma 74020

                              For   Gilda Marie Schoonover  404171

                                      Mabel Basset Prison

                                      29501 Kickapoo

                                      McLoud Okla. 74851

21

FILED IN MAYES COUNTY 14 OCTOBER 2005  

In the District Court of Mayes County

State of Oklahoma

Gilda Marie Schoonover               )

                                                      )

         Petitioner                            )

                                                      )

              Vs.                                   )      No. CF 1999-271-B

                                                      )

The State of Oklahoma                 )

                                                      )

APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

Supplemental Pro-se brief

          Part A

Comes Now the Petitioner, Gilda Marie Schoonover, an inmate within the Oklahoma Department of Corrections currently detained at the Mabel Basset Correctional Center under the direct care, custody and supervision of Millicent Newton-Embry, Warden.

The Petitioner brings this motion before this honorable Court Pro Se, and as a layman not educated in the mechanics of the law invokes the Protections of Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520.

The Petitioner is seeking relief from the conviction in Case Number CF-1999-271, sentenced May 28, 2003 to Life with the possibility of Parole in the Department of Corrections and $1,000 fine for the crime of Murder in the First Degree, Child Abuse, in violation of 21 O.S. 2001 section 701.7 (C) after a plea of Not Guilty. 

22

James T. Rowan represented the defendant at trial (hired by the Schoonover family); state appointed Oklahoma Indigent Defense System attorney Katrina Conrad-Legler represented the defendant at Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The appeal is unpublished, case no: F-2003-623

PROPOSITIONS

State induced Ineffective Assistance of Trial and Appellate Counsel, Prosecutor Misconduct and Judicial Misconduct.

Supplemental Pro-se brief to Post Conviction Relief

“Dr. Delong who examined Benjamin “did not believe the seriousness of the current injury generally reflected something that that could have happened from a simple fall, which is a ground level fall.”” (Tr. 638)

No witness said at any time that Benjamin fell while running nor that it was a ground level fall.

Dr. Barton testified that “Benjamin’s injuries were inconsistent with a child injuring himself by falling while he was running.” (Tr. 955)

No witness claimed at any time that Benjamin fell while running.

23

Dr. Distefano testified that “the findings of this child are certainly not the result of a trivial fall.”  (Tr. 832) His “findings” were “Based on the information I receive” and he received his information through John Pojman directly from George Klatt who wrote and swore to the Probable Cause Affidavit on which is the confession John made to Carol Frye that Judy Girdner overhead that he had killed Ben and for Carol to tell the rest of the family. 

No fatal fall is a trivial fall.  A “trivial” fall is one that is not “fatal.”  No witness claimed that Benjamin had a “trivial” fall.  Benjamin died from a “fatal” fall.

Death does not result from a trivial “normal household fall.”  But “Could it happen from an abnormal household fall?”   This question was not asked any physician nor was it allowed to be put before the jury.  {Tr. 1325}  This is both ineffective and State rendered ineffective assistance of counsel as most certainly the answer is that toddlers die from abnormal household falls.  (see Plunkett article introduced by Dr. Krouse {{and his testimony, “I’ve seen it happen.” (Jacki)}}).

To expand on {rendered} Ineffectiveness of Counsel Mr. Rowan was unable to introduce evidence that there was furniture in the house that Benjamin most likely fell from while climbing upon.  E.g.; the photograph introduced in the original trial of the piano bench next to the cement floor.  Dr. Distefano was not allowed to answer the question, “Are you excluding any possibility that those combinations can result in a fall or a set of circumstances that could cause the kind of damage that happened to Benjamin Schoonover?”  (Tr. 843)  In the first trial his answer was in the negative.

Dr. Christopher Delong and Dr. Michael Gietzen of Mayes County both testified that it appeared that Benjamin appeared to be having an “active seizure” (Tr.629) and there were no signs of “any injuries to the outside of his body, exterior of his body, the facial area or the head area that you could see, sir?” “No” (Tr.630-631) His pupils were “fixed and dilated” (but not “blown”) (Tr.650) and was having “seizure like activity”) (Tr.658) and no signs of exterior trauma!

24

There is testimony that John “had seen him (Benjamin) actually through a window while he was outside seeing Ben inside” (Tr.657) thus John probably knows exactly what happened to Benjamin but John was never called as a witness to testify.  Why?

Dr. Krouse testified, “The finding of a single fairly profound, or obviously lethal head injury, and the discovery of the unresponsive and unconscious child on a very hard and unyielding surface, particularly if there is an elevated area near by from which he might have fallen, bring into play the possibility that it was an accident, that it was a fall and that it was a single impact that caused this fatal injury.” (Tr.627)

In his closing, Mr. Ramsey egregiously misquoted Dr. Krouse: “Dr. Krouse testified…That this injury could not have happened from a fall.” (Tr.758) “It could not have been an accident.” (Tr.764)

The jury asked to see portions of the transcript that included the serious misquotes in the previous and following paragraphs by Mr. Ramsey so that the jury would know the facts:  Mr. Ramsey had asked Dr. Krouse concerning the “likely” hood of such an injury as Benjamin had regaining consciousness, “At some point later, he would move?” and Dr Krouse responded, “It’s not very likely at all.” {Tr. 1203} 

In his closing Mr. Ramsey quoted all the doctors as “Benjamin could not have” “and even Dr. Krouse, the man they paid to come up here, even Dr. Krouse said Benjamin did not get the massive injuries…running along the floor slipping and falling” {Tr. 1335-1336} when Dr. Block factually stated, “Nobody is saying that a child can’t die from a low-distance fall. {Tr. 1171}

“She feels this child is causing problems for John”  “He is jealous of this child.”  Totally improper and deliberately misleading when Mr. Ramsey knows John was a licensed child care provider for ten years in the State of Idaho.  “So the parents make up a story of a slip and fall.”  No where was that claimed.  And no where was there any evidence of Benjamin’s brains Squishing and gushing out the top of his head. 

25

Mr. Ramsey was asked by Judge Post, “Is it your position that you misstated the question you asked of Dr. Krouse?” {Tr.1451}

“No, your honor, I don’t believe I misstated anything.” {Tr. 1352}

“Did you use the word “likely”?”

“No, I don’t believe so, Judge.”

The question by Mr. Ramsey was in fact: “Is it likely, Doctor…?” {Tr.1203} 

Mr. Ramsey was not even honest with Judge Post and she was made a fool of by his deception just as were the jurors. Judge Post would not allow the jurors to read the facts they asked to read even after asking Mr. Rowan if he would pay for the transcript and he replied in the affirmative; insisting they rely on faulty conflicting memories and insisting they deliberate until they reach a unanimous decision.

These are but five of more than a dozen misquotes constituting justification for reassessment of the conviction.  McCarty v. State, 765 P.2d 1215 (Okl.Cr.1988; U.S. Const. amends V, XIV; Okla. Const., art. II, section 7.  In Sykes v. State, 95 Okla. Cr. 14, 238 P.2d 384 387 (1951) “This Court noted that where “there is any doubt at all as to whether [improper argument] has affected the trial, the benefit of the doubt should be given the accused.”

26

Extreme Judicial Prejudice

Public comments by Judge Post and Charles Ramsey quoted in newspapers before the trial began cast even a greater doubt and shows egregious prejudice when “any testimony they present that the bruises on the murder victim, Benjamin Schoonover, were not consistent with a pattern of child abuse” is printed as fact when there was no testimony of the finding of any bruises in either trial that would indicate any form of child abuse.  The two hour video of Benjamin, including the DHS interview with Benjamin a week before his accident clearly shows how Benjamin received the single bruise on his hip as a result of what DHS employee Dawn Carson asked Benjamin to do, “How high can you jump?” and Benjamin fell butt first on a Lego.  The video tape was in the possession of Charles Ramsey. Such prejudicial public comments by Judge Post declaring Benjamin a “Murder Victim” before the trial began obviate preclusion of any possibility of a fair fact finding trial.        {exhibit B: pre-trial newspaper clipping photocopy}  (note: Newspapers are not permitted in the Mayes County Jail thus preventing the Schoonovers from having knowledge of the existence of this extremely prejudicial article until after the trial)

“Abuse investigation records could be used.”  All these would show is that the allegations were groundless and the expeditiousness of the adoption was recommended. 

Dr. Barton originally testified that, “His skull fracture was near the base of his brain in the back part right here.  It wasn’t terribly long, it was about that long” indicating with his fingers one half inch which corresponds to other descriptions plus an actual autopsy photo of a fracture shown the jury.  (Tr.300) and Dr. Block testified “His fracture, which was discovered actually at autopsy” (Tr.470) controverts that Dr. Barton saw a fracture at the onset as he did not even note one in his written report (Preliminary Hearing) and Dr Block testified “I wouldn’t be surprised by seeing a small occipital fracture …from a fall that could occur in household settings.”

27

Dr. Distefano testified, “I am not excluding that a child could fall from a height, land on an extremely hard floor, assuming the hardest (cement), and suffer a fatal injury” and “based only on the objective medical findings, I could not classify it other than not natural.” (Tr. 846, 847)

In his closing Mr. Ramsey stated to the jury, “The nurse at the hospital said that she received a call from John about 6:45.  What happened in that 45 minutes* to little Benjamin?” (Tr. 1338) Nora Stanart talked to Benjamin after 6:30.  “Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I don’t know.  I know that I have a little boy that went to Saint Francis Hospital with his brain squishing out the top of his head.**  I know that he had injuries that were non accidental…his brains gushing out of the top of his head.” Tr. 1338, 1340)**

* {It is this statement (not evidence) that Judge Post declares that there is “evidence” of a time delay which she uses to justify the sua-sponte charge of accessory that the Court of Criminal Appeals declared “did not commit and could not be charged with”}

** “Reversal required when prosecutor knowingly introduced and argued false evidence” {Brown v. Borg, 951 F2d.1011 (9^th Cir. 1991)}               **(also see bottom of page 4)

The concern here is the testimony of Dr. Barton and the suppression of a written statement of fact by a truly expert witness in the area of fractures vs. the unqualified testimony of Dr. Barton as an expert in a field in which he is not trained or licensed but bolstered as an expert by Mr. Ramsey.  Dr. Barton is not a qualified radiologist. Much less an “expert” in the field of radiology.

There is NO mention of any fracture in Dr. Barton’s written hospital log.  He claims he did not note it because “it” was insignificant.  However, he indicates later that he did see “it” and “it” was 12mm in length.   That was at a previous “hearing.”

28

To verify the correct fact of no fracture for Dr. Barton not to write “it” in his hospital report is the statement of the radiologist that made the CAT scans and X-rays, radiologists trained as experts in the field of reading such films and their report is, from the knowledge of, and expressed by, Mr. Ramsey: “Judge, this is apparently a hospital record where a radiologist has apparently looked at this cat scan and determined that she did not see any fracture there.  To my knowledge, she is not endorsed as a witness.”  (Tr. 966) Why is she not endorsed an expert witness unless it is that Mr. Ramsey needs a fracture that does not exist for “Benjamin’s brains to be squishing and gushing out the top of his head before surgery?” What better way to enflame a jury?

Why was the bench conference held so quietly that the reporter interrupts with “I can’t hear” (Tr. 966) unless Mr. Ramsey most definitely does not want the jury to know, as he does, that there was no such fracture before Benjamin entered Saint Francis Hospital?  Otherwise he could not present the false statement in his closing to the jury misleading them to believing Benjamin’s brains were squishing, bulging and gushing out the top of his head through multiple massive fractures that were nonexistent before surgery. **{see bottom page 6}

Dr. Barton, when shown CAT scans (that Judge Post said, “These are fractures (plural)” “I presume (Tr. 949) those were the ones that were introduced before.”), testified, there was a two inch fracture, “on the bone windows” (plural) (Tr. 965) and pointing, “there is that crack right there, right there, …and right here and right here …and that’s a somewhat unusual place for a fracture.”

NO competent judge “Presumes” such as this any more than “presume” in public prior to trial that Benjamin is

a “Murder Victim.”

 Mr. Adams objected to Dr. Barton talking about this second fracture.  “We have been given no notice of this.  It’s nowhere in the medical records.  I can’t find this anywhere from the previous trial.”  (Tr. 949) 

29

There is the possibility of only one of two scenarios:  Either the radiologist is incompetent and blind or the radiologist is competent.  The radiologist is still in the employee of St. Francis.  This would suggest that the radiologist that saw no fracture on the original CAT scan is a competent radiologist and this is a credible fact.  It would suggest that Dr. Barton has created fractures that did not exist or Judge Post “Presumed” in error that this is the same CAT scan or it had been altered to show fractures that were not there for Dr. Barton to “see” fresh fractures that did not exist prior to surgery.  Dr. Barton has no way of knowing it is not the same CAT scan.  “Presumed” as valid evidence is no less than admitting “Tampered evidence” (videotapes) in a trial in Judge Post’s court August 27, [see Fred Bennett Welch v. State.  It is maintained that Judge Post and other officials “acted outside the scope of their authority in conferring with Post on details not only of the criminal case, but the civil case as well.”  There appears to be a pattern. 

Someone’s credibility is questionable.  A fracture was needed for Ben’s brains to “squish, bulge and gush out the top of his head.”  Either Dr. Barton is suborned to perjury and the prosecutor made up the whole story of Benjamin’s brains bulging, squishing and gushing out the top of his head solely to enflame the jury when no such injury existed or there was in fact  inflicted fractures {there is that crack right there, right there, …and right here and right here} readily visible on a CAT scan taken after surgery because they were inflicted (by someone) after surgery.  This massive fracture was not on the CAT scan taken prior to surgery or the radiologist would had to have been blind or inebriated not to see them and Dr. Barton would have written it in his report. 

The late Attorney General Patrick Crawley verified the existence of these horrible fractures in his brief, “The toddler’s head was busted open.”  The only element that Attorney General Patrick Crawley erred on is the time this horrible fracture was inflicted to show “the toddler’s head was busted open.”  Dr. Delong and Dr. Gietzen of Mayes County testified in the negative to any signs of any injuries to Benjamin’s head. {Tr. 630-631}

30

It was ineffective of appellate attorney Catrina Conrad-Legler not to controvert with facts that this “massive” horrible fracture did not exist before Benjamin entered St. Francis Hospital.  It was ineffective of trial counsels not to see this obvious enigma. 

The “theory” of how and when Benjamin’s head was “busted open” for photographs of brain material to be shown State’s witnesses is elucidated in the publication Knights in Dirty Armour and legal references why Gilda Marie Schoonover should not have been convicted and should be overturned are in Chapter XIV.  See the published documentary, Knights in Dirty Armour, ISBN 1-41206-6 (Trafford Publishing, Canada, Ireland and the U.K.) attached as pro-se exhibit “A”  

There is no other way to explain this conundrum.  The jury was convinced that there were “massive” fractures (plural) inconsistent with an accident and this is not contested.  The time they were inflicted is contested as it can not be before the radiologist made the CAT scan and took the Xrays of Benjamin and reported “no fractures.” 

There is also the Probable Cause Affidavit on which George Klatt swore to under oath as true that “John Schoonover confessed to killing Ben.  He told Carol Frye and was overheard by Judy Girdner who will testify that he told Carol Frye to tell the rest of the family.”

This is exculpatory evidence suppressed by the prosecution. It was ineffective assistance of trial counsel that this fact was not brought out and the jury made aware of as had they known there was a “confession” by John Schoonover on the Probable Cause Affidavit there is no doubt that the jury would have acquitted Gilda Marie Schoonover of a crime that had been “confessed” to by another.  Sellers v. Estelle, 651 F2d 1074 (5^th Cir. 1981) 455 U.S. 927 (1982) and Bowen v. Maynard, 977 F.2d 593 (10^th Cir) 479 U.S. 962 (1986)

31

This brings us back to the confrontation clause that was violated and is outlined in the well written laconic brief by Kevin Adams.  Had Gilda Marie’s attorney been allowed to Call John Schoonover to the stand to testify the truth of Gilda Marie’s innocence would have been obvious as John Schoonover was present and John Schoonover knows exactly what happened to Little Benjamin Schoonover the night of October 31, 1999.  It would have been uncontrovertable testimony that would have proved the absolute innocence of Gilda Marie Schoonover. 

* * * * *

There is a chasm between diligence in seeking justice and an obsession to convict at all hazards. (People v. Fielding 158 NY 542-547 (1899)  Mr. Ramsey chose the latter.

You have the affidavit of Mrs. Nora Stanart, from her letter to Governor Brad Henry July 27^th, 2004, as outlined on page 44 and 45 of exhibit “A,” who was an ear witness to the fact that Gilda Marie Schoonover was on the telephone in another room far removed from and NOT present with Benjamin when he suffered his trauma; an ear witness to the fact that there was NO “time delay” for any foul play.  The AT&T cell phone records of both phones verify the calls were made within minutes from Hwy 69 simultaneously at 6:45pm, 15 minutes before the Schoonovers were being logged in at the Mayes County Medical Center at 7pm.

It must be hard to discover that people in your profession have made serious mistakes.

It must be hard to reverse a decision made by a colleague. 

It must be even harder to have the fate of a human being in your hands. 

The weight of your decision determining one’s very existence.

I myself would not want such responsibility.

32

But, your honor, you have this responsibility of life or death for Gilda Marie Schoonover and cannot escape it. 

Your honor, so many inconsistencies have been brought to your attention warranting reversal of this conviction.

So much evidence and testimony to show serious mistakes made at trial.

Including the mistake of the jury due to misinformation that you must use your enormous power to correct.

Your honor, you are now this lady’s only jury.  Be brave.

For the reasons cited in the brief of Kevin Adams and in this pro-se supplement:

                          Find for Truth and Justice.

Your children and grandchildren will be glad you did, as you will have made them a little freer from tyranny.

Signed, for Gilda Marie Schoonover,

                                                         John Schoonover

                                                             RR 1 Box 67

                                                  Cleveland Oklahoma 74020

Enc. Exhibit A

Knights in Dirty Armour ISBN 1-41206-6

Exhibit B

Photocopy of Pryor Daily Times declaration of prejudice.

References to Caselaw.

33

I certify that a true and exact copy of this document was mailed via Flat Rate Priority Mail to:

Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma

Brad Henry, Governor of Oklahoma

[ State Capitol , Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 ]

Charles Ramsey

[ Mayes County Courthouse, Pryor Oklahoma 74361 ]

This document is also published in Part II of

knightsindirtyarmour.com

                         Signed:           John Schoonover

                                                RR 1 Box 67

                                                Cleveland Oklahoma 74020

                                      For    Gilda Marie Schoonover

                                                Mabel Basset Prison

                                               29501 Kickapoo

                                                McLoud Okla. 74851

Conclusion of documents

Filed in Mayes County October 14, 2005

The Court has 30 days in which to respond and that response will be published in the next chapter.

In the meantime, I welcome your comments in our Guest Book.

Respectfully, John Schoonover

And Pamela C. Brook

34