When prosecutors and judges get caught lying and cheating in their official capacity it is often covered up by the judge’s universal middle finger to the defendant: ruling their “error” (lying and cheating) a harmless error. Hey, When my wife catches me lying and cheating she doesn’t rule it harmless error, so why the double standard?
James Hunter was arrested and prosecuted for being the driver who allegedly dropped off two would-be robbers at a check-cashing store. The robbers were shot to death in the botched robbery attempt. (CR-1993-006452)
The Maricopa County Prosecutor’s Office seems to have had trouble with the case from day one. They arrested Mr. Hunter on September 23, 1991, and later dismissed charges for lack of evidence.
Over a year later, Mr. Hunter was rearrested, with the State using hearsay evidence to prosecute. That evidence was later ruled inadmissible on appeal by the Arizona Division One Court of Appeals. However, the court deemed the evidence a harmless error.
Under today’s law, Arizona does provide relief to a defendant raising an inadmissible ruling from the court. However, in Mr. Hunter’s case, he is barred from raising a claim under the Change in Law Statute because ARS § 1-244 does not apply new laws retroactively.
On August, 5th,1993, Hunter was rearrested with no New Evidence and tried in July/August, 1994 in a trial which ended with the jury asking the Court ” to define reasonable doubt” during three days of deliberation. The State introduced Hearsay Evidence of a License Plate number to identify Hunter as being at scene. On Appeal, the Div. One Court Of Appeals held the identifying license plate no “as being inadmissible” but deemed it harmless error even though it was only tangible evidence placing Hunter at scene.
Under Harmless Error Review, the Court held there was other evidence to support conviction. In 2018 State V. Escalante,, Supra, the State Supreme Court ruled that under Harmless Error Review, ” other evidence is no longer standard for review” rather, the standard is what prejudice did the inadmissible evidence contribute to the verdict”.
Still, the Arizona Courts denied Hunter’s Rule-32.1(g) “Change In Law” Petition pursuant to State V. Slemmer, Supra, which held
“defendant is insulated from rules of finality and preclusion when as rule contemplates there has been a significant change in law applied in process which led to conviction or sentence “.
Effectively, the state is admitting the previous statute was unconstitutional, yet many of those imprisoned because of that law are now condemned to life in prison literally the walking dead.
Due to this rule, Mr. Hunter is being denied justice for his appeal and remains incarcerated, while others in similar situations today are receiving relief from the courts, preventing incarceration and unjustified life sentences.
These two words, retroactively and harmless error are deliberate indifference to poor citizens in prisons across America, not only
from the Arizona legislature and Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in Phoenix, Arizona. Defendants who should legally have a path to appeal are being denied that opportunity and given the middle finger instead.
Cadmus Publishing LLC
Mediarelations@cadmuspblishing.com
By George Kayer. A public domain document.