I know I was posting the motion for new trial word for word. It takes a tremendous amount of time. I want all to know that our motion in the State court of appeals was denied. We then filed a reconsideration motion which was also denied. We will file for a certificate for the Supreme Court next. I do not know what is going to happen there. My faith in the system actually working properly is gone.
I do not think any of the people who are supposed to be looking at these documents are even reading them. I just don't understand. We are all so disheartened. It is very hard to keep your faith when people just simply don't care about what is right and wrong. We will continue to fight. We pray that Tonya Craft's lawsuit makes some progress and her attorneys get an investigation into this judicial circuit. And of course, Mr. Anderson. His posts make a big difference.
I will continue to get my brother's story out there. But if there is anyone out there who has any suggestions as to which direction we go now, besides the Supreme Court, please let us know. I would like to be able to do anything to get something else going for him and not sit and wait on these people. These people being the court system. I do not think the court systems are at all fair and as I said before, they do not care about right and wrong. It's all about money!!
I will be posting a little more regular around the end of August. I still have vacation and back to school. So I will be busy for a couple more weeks, then it will calm and I can write again. Thanks for all the support and bearing with me.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Back to motion #2
2. The court erred in overruling trial counsel's objection to the testimony of forensic interviewer and to the admission of the tape of the forensic interview, Stacy Long, under Cuzzort v. State, 254 Ga. 745 (1985) regarding the introduction of prior consistent statements of a witness (JH and AW) through another witness (Stacy Long). Tr. Tr. 226-230; 244-245.
Throughout the trial, the prosecution consistently sought and succeeded in getting hearsay evidence admitted which consisted of prior consistent statements of a proir witness; hearsay evidence is that which does not derive its value solely from the credit of the witness, but rests mainly on the veracity and competency of other persons. In this instance Mr. Levitt objected to the admissibility of the taped forensic interviews of JH and AW because they contained leading questions which were "coached" by investigator Jennifer Cooley and suggested by Cooley through an ear piece, to forensic interviewer telling JH, "it's Brad's fault, we'll get you some counseling" Tr. Tr. 228. At this point Mr. Levitt also objected to the prior consistent statements, and a line of comments by the interviewer which should not be seen by the jury. Mr. Gregor relied on Cuzzort V. State, 254 Ga. 74 (1985) in support of the admissibility of the tape. See Tr. Tr. 226-230. Cuzzort involved a trial where the father was charged with aggravated sodomy to his daughter, who made the same statement when she testified in court. The issue in Cuzzort was whether the mother could testify to the out of court statement of the daughter- the same statement the daughter made in court, subject to cross-examination- or whether the mother's testimony would be hearsay. The Court held that the concerns of the hearsay rule were satisfied since both statements were the same, and the daughter was subject to cross-examination about her testimony and about her out of court statement.
Brown v. State, 250 Ga. App. 147 (2001) expands on the holding in Cuzzort, explaining the difference between the witness expanding on his prior statements and other persons commenting on the same, suggesting a simple answer: "{A} witness' testimony as to what he (the witness) said is not hearsay. Hearsay evidence is that which does not derive its value solely from the credit of the witness, but rests mainly on the veracity and competency of other persons. In short, the hearsay rule prohibits the witness from testifying as to what another person said; it does not apply to what the witness himself said." Brown, at 148.
In this particular tape, some of which Mr. Levitt pointed out, the forensic interviewer told JH he "did a good job", "you don't have to be ashamed", "it wasn't you, its Brad, Brad's got a problem." 4/18/06 Transcript of JH forensic interview, page 34. Long continues by offering JH counseling, she tell him he's "getting into them girls and stuff". 11/06/08 MNT D. Exhibit 2, Forensic Interview JH, pages 34-35. In other words, she commented on the videotape about JH's-the witness'- feelings, assigning to him shame, rewarding him for his statement by saying "good job", "testifying" that Brad Wade has got a problem. Long's comments on the statements of JH amount to impermissible hearsay, which should have been eliminated from the tape before showing it to the jury. See also, Amy Morton affidavit, as to the leading questions and the problems ascribed by research to questioning such as transpired in this so-called forensic interview. See also, 11/06/08 Tr. 50-69, where Ms. Morton discusses how clinical studies of children's behavior are indicative of abuse and the impact of the structured interviewing process, which ignored all of the informal "interviews" with parents and others.
The same problem appears in the AW interview, with the interviewer making statements which are not statements made by AW- they were made to AW- and which were not subject to cross examination. Cuzzort does not apply to this set of circumstances.
Next will be Number 3.
Throughout the trial, the prosecution consistently sought and succeeded in getting hearsay evidence admitted which consisted of prior consistent statements of a proir witness; hearsay evidence is that which does not derive its value solely from the credit of the witness, but rests mainly on the veracity and competency of other persons. In this instance Mr. Levitt objected to the admissibility of the taped forensic interviews of JH and AW because they contained leading questions which were "coached" by investigator Jennifer Cooley and suggested by Cooley through an ear piece, to forensic interviewer telling JH, "it's Brad's fault, we'll get you some counseling" Tr. Tr. 228. At this point Mr. Levitt also objected to the prior consistent statements, and a line of comments by the interviewer which should not be seen by the jury. Mr. Gregor relied on Cuzzort V. State, 254 Ga. 74 (1985) in support of the admissibility of the tape. See Tr. Tr. 226-230. Cuzzort involved a trial where the father was charged with aggravated sodomy to his daughter, who made the same statement when she testified in court. The issue in Cuzzort was whether the mother could testify to the out of court statement of the daughter- the same statement the daughter made in court, subject to cross-examination- or whether the mother's testimony would be hearsay. The Court held that the concerns of the hearsay rule were satisfied since both statements were the same, and the daughter was subject to cross-examination about her testimony and about her out of court statement.
Brown v. State, 250 Ga. App. 147 (2001) expands on the holding in Cuzzort, explaining the difference between the witness expanding on his prior statements and other persons commenting on the same, suggesting a simple answer: "{A} witness' testimony as to what he (the witness) said is not hearsay. Hearsay evidence is that which does not derive its value solely from the credit of the witness, but rests mainly on the veracity and competency of other persons. In short, the hearsay rule prohibits the witness from testifying as to what another person said; it does not apply to what the witness himself said." Brown, at 148.
In this particular tape, some of which Mr. Levitt pointed out, the forensic interviewer told JH he "did a good job", "you don't have to be ashamed", "it wasn't you, its Brad, Brad's got a problem." 4/18/06 Transcript of JH forensic interview, page 34. Long continues by offering JH counseling, she tell him he's "getting into them girls and stuff". 11/06/08 MNT D. Exhibit 2, Forensic Interview JH, pages 34-35. In other words, she commented on the videotape about JH's-the witness'- feelings, assigning to him shame, rewarding him for his statement by saying "good job", "testifying" that Brad Wade has got a problem. Long's comments on the statements of JH amount to impermissible hearsay, which should have been eliminated from the tape before showing it to the jury. See also, Amy Morton affidavit, as to the leading questions and the problems ascribed by research to questioning such as transpired in this so-called forensic interview. See also, 11/06/08 Tr. 50-69, where Ms. Morton discusses how clinical studies of children's behavior are indicative of abuse and the impact of the structured interviewing process, which ignored all of the informal "interviews" with parents and others.
The same problem appears in the AW interview, with the interviewer making statements which are not statements made by AW- they were made to AW- and which were not subject to cross examination. Cuzzort does not apply to this set of circumstances.
Next will be Number 3.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Continuing with part two Enumeration of Errors
Ms. Morton addressed the Jennifer Cooley report, Defendants Exhibit 17 at the hearing, which indicated numerous reports to Cooley that AW sexually acted out, touched other children, masturbated in front of other children, yet the genesis of this participation in sexual activity was not explored by the forensic interviewer. AW was described in the therapy records as being manipulative, sneaky, had problems with being honest and he liked to please, which should have made the interviewer cautious and diligent, trying to determine whether there was any secondary gain for AW by making these allegations. ( And there was, he was bought a new camper/van)(at 14).
An expert witness was absolutely necessary in this case; clearly Mr. Levitt had no idea about utilizing an expert witness (11/06/08 Tr. 77-81), he had never tried a child molestation case in Georgia 11/06/08 Tr. 68, he never attended a Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers ( GACDL) seminar Id. at 68, he is/was not a member of GACDL and he has never attended a seminar presented by noted child molestation expert, Doug Peters, Id. at 68. Consulting an expert witness but failing to provide information to the witness so an opinion could be performed, resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel. At the evidentiary hearing Mr. Levitt testified that it was "trial strategy" not to call the expert witness. 11/06/08 Tr. 90. The law in the State of Georgia, which it is believed Mr. Levitt did not know, since he only attended DUI seminars as to Georgia law Id. 61, 67, authorized the defense to educate the jury about interview techniques with children, which was not done in this case. Trial strategy cannot be implicated unless the attorney understands the legal implications of the decisions he makes at trial. There is no question that Mr. Levitt first of all, made not effort to secure all of the available evidence and provide it to the expert(it is undisputed that this evidence was disclosed and available upon request. 11/06/08 Tr. 127-132; second, Mr. Levitt did not know he could secure the school records of JH (Id. 62) and did not understand that school records are an indicator of whether or not the behavior of the child witness is consistent with that of an abused child; third, Mr. Levitt clearly had no idea of the laws of the state of Georgia as to anything other than DUI. 11/06/08 Tr. 61, 131-132. The Court should take judicial notice that every competent attorney who represents a defendant charged with child molestation comes to court armed with Doug Peters' manual, upon representing those accused of child molestation, in her briefcase.
I'm getting a little at a time on here. This was an unfinished part from the number 1. Next is Number 2. The whole thing is about 55 pages. I am doing the best I can to get it on here.
Next after the motion is completely on here, I will put the opinion that the state court of appeals wrote to us. We have since filed a reconsideration motion. It is quite hard to believe. I don't expect the reconsideration motion to make much difference. But hopefully we can get a certificate to the Supreme Court and pray they will at least look at the evidence. As the state appeals court seemed to have failed to do, according to its opinion. You will see. Thanks for the continued support from all!! From now on I am going to say this to you all, if you know anyone who can maybe help us, please contact me via email. Or Mr. Anderson has my personal info. But I am asking for any help we can get. God Bless you all and God Bless my Brother, Brad Wade.
An expert witness was absolutely necessary in this case; clearly Mr. Levitt had no idea about utilizing an expert witness (11/06/08 Tr. 77-81), he had never tried a child molestation case in Georgia 11/06/08 Tr. 68, he never attended a Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers ( GACDL) seminar Id. at 68, he is/was not a member of GACDL and he has never attended a seminar presented by noted child molestation expert, Doug Peters, Id. at 68. Consulting an expert witness but failing to provide information to the witness so an opinion could be performed, resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel. At the evidentiary hearing Mr. Levitt testified that it was "trial strategy" not to call the expert witness. 11/06/08 Tr. 90. The law in the State of Georgia, which it is believed Mr. Levitt did not know, since he only attended DUI seminars as to Georgia law Id. 61, 67, authorized the defense to educate the jury about interview techniques with children, which was not done in this case. Trial strategy cannot be implicated unless the attorney understands the legal implications of the decisions he makes at trial. There is no question that Mr. Levitt first of all, made not effort to secure all of the available evidence and provide it to the expert(it is undisputed that this evidence was disclosed and available upon request. 11/06/08 Tr. 127-132; second, Mr. Levitt did not know he could secure the school records of JH (Id. 62) and did not understand that school records are an indicator of whether or not the behavior of the child witness is consistent with that of an abused child; third, Mr. Levitt clearly had no idea of the laws of the state of Georgia as to anything other than DUI. 11/06/08 Tr. 61, 131-132. The Court should take judicial notice that every competent attorney who represents a defendant charged with child molestation comes to court armed with Doug Peters' manual, upon representing those accused of child molestation, in her briefcase.
I'm getting a little at a time on here. This was an unfinished part from the number 1. Next is Number 2. The whole thing is about 55 pages. I am doing the best I can to get it on here.
Next after the motion is completely on here, I will put the opinion that the state court of appeals wrote to us. We have since filed a reconsideration motion. It is quite hard to believe. I don't expect the reconsideration motion to make much difference. But hopefully we can get a certificate to the Supreme Court and pray they will at least look at the evidence. As the state appeals court seemed to have failed to do, according to its opinion. You will see. Thanks for the continued support from all!! From now on I am going to say this to you all, if you know anyone who can maybe help us, please contact me via email. Or Mr. Anderson has my personal info. But I am asking for any help we can get. God Bless you all and God Bless my Brother, Brad Wade.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Part Two Enumeration of Error
1. Barlow/Goldstein Issue. Petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of councel by his trial counsel's failure to introduce expert testimony pursuant to Barlow v. State, 270 Ga. 54, 507 S.E.2d 416 (1998) for the purpose of providing the jury with information about proper techniques for interviewing children and the possible effects of the interviewing techniques actually utilized. Goldstein v. State, 283 Ga. App. 1 (2006). The Court erred in failing to grant a new trial on this enumeration of error.
2. Cuzzort Issue. The Court erred in overruling trial counsel's objection to the testimony of forensic interviewer and to the admission of the tape of the forensic interview, Stacy Long, under Cuzzort v. State, 254 Ga. 745 (1985) regarding the introduction of prior consistent statements of a witness (JH and AW) through another witness (Stacy Long) Tr. Tr. 226-230; 244-245. The Court erred in failing to grant a new trial on this enumeration of error.
3. Rape Shield Issue. Petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel based on trial consel's failure, (as well as the Assisstant District Attorney's failure,) to know the Georgia law of "Rape Shield Statute" was not applicable to child molestation cases or sexual battery cases, which prevented the jury from considering evidence that impeached the alleged victim's and other witnesses' allegations of molestation by the petitioner, and prevented Wade from presenting his defense, that JH and AW were harboring a reason to falsely accuse petitioner. The Court erred in failing to grant a new trial on this enumeration of error.
4. Hall Issue. Petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment Right to effective assistance of counsel by his trial counsel's failure to investigate, prepare, and presentlay witness and expert witness testimony pursuant to Hall v. State, 201 Ga. App. pg. 626,411 SE 2d pg. 777 (1991), that would have demonstrated that the alleged victim did not exhibit behavior typical of a sexually abused child, nor did Wade's son, AW, exhibit the behavior of one who had knowledge of his father engaging in sexual abuse of his best friend. The Court erred in failing to grant a new trial on this enumeration of error.
5. Petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by his trial counsel's failure to seek disclosure of potentially exculpatory evidence, by his failure to adequately prepare and learn Georgia law on child molestation, by underutilizing the forensic expert he hired. The Court erred in failing to grant a new trial on this enumeration of error.
Part Three Argument and Citation of Authorities
1. Petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by his trial counsel's failure to introduce expert testimony pursuant to Barlow v. State, 270 Ga. 54, 507 S. E. 2d 416 (1998) for the purpose of providing the jury with information about proper techniques for interviewing children and the possible effects of the interviewing techniques actually utilized. Goldstein v. State, 283 Ga. App. 1 (2006).
Trial counsel, Martin Levitt, hired Dr. Eric S. Engum, who is both an attorney and a clinical psychologist specializing in clinical neuropsychology, to review the 2006 videotape of JH and the April 18, 2007 vidoetape of AW. 11/06/08 Tr. 77. In his handwritten notes, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Motion for a New Trial; admitted at the 11/06/08 evidentiary hearing as Defendant's Exhibit 24, Dr. Engum recognized that this was potential issue, yet there is nothing in the record to indicate that he ever saw the tape. "This interview absolutely should have been provided to this expert (Dr. Engum)", according to the March 27, 2008 affidavit of Amy Morton, LMFT (Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist). 11/06/08 Tr. 23-24. This Court certified Ms. Morton as an expert in forensic interviewing and family therapy. There was no objection from the State. 11/06/08 Tr. 14. See Amy Morton Affidavit attached, at page 7. Amy Morton also advised, as follows:
The (prior) interview was also not presented by the defense at trial. In fact, this vidoe is not in the defense file at all. Based on Ms. Long's testimony at trial, it appears that AW's statements in this interview contradicted his statements in the interview nearly one year later and AW's testimony at trial. The expert should have been provided with this tape so that he could evaluate the change in the child's statement in context and comment on the interviewer's technique and issues such as the impact of multiple interviews (both forensic and clinical in therapy) over time and the impact of family/peer pressure. Likewise, the expert should have evaluated the interviews of the other children, Brooke, PW,BW. since they could have been in the home when the alleged incidents occurred, the absence of them witnessing anything could be significant, and their statements to the interviewer might or might not have contradicted other testimony. (See also 11/06/08 Tr. 26)
Amy Morton also suggested other documents which, based upon paperwork in the defense file were clearly in existence, should have been requested by defense counsel, but were not. She difined a forensic interview and its importance, at the hearing. 11/06/08 Tr. 29-30. She also addressed suggestibility and the problems created when forensic interviewer asks leading questions and injects bias into the interview, which impacts the integrity of that process. See 11/06/08 Tr. 30-37. Documents were requested by undersigned counsel and were provided and reviewed by Amy Morton. 11/06/08 Tr. 23-24. Those documents, which were never requested by trial counsel, are:
1. The videotape and Forensic Interview Report of the first forensic interview with AW conducted on April 21, 2006. (Marty Levitt did not request this interview because he relied on the D.A.'s notes in the D.A.'s file. 11/06/08 Tr. 101, 129
2. The videotapes and the Forensic Interview Reports of the forensic interviews with Brooke Wade, PW and BW. (Marty Levitt did not request this interview because he relied on the D.A.'s notes in the D.A.'s file 11/06/08 Tr. 101,129)
3. The Forensic Interview Report for the April 18, 2006 Forensic Interview of AW. ( Marty Levitt did not request this interview because he relied on the D.A.'s notes in the D.A.'s file. 11/06/08 Tr. 101, 129.
4. The counseling records of JH. (Levitt did not adress)
5. The medical records of JH. (Levitt did not adress)
6. The school records of JH. ( Levitt testified that he did not think he could get them 11/06/08 Tr. 82)
7. Notes, audio and video tapes and reports of every interview with AW and JH done by the police, detectives, forensic interviewers or any other party employed by the County or State. (Mr. Levitt relied on the D.A.'s notes, see above)
The documents referenced in the tapes the district attorney's office provided to defense counsel should have been requested, and should have been provided to the expert consulted by the defense, so he would be able to evaluate the case, having a clear picture of what all parties knew and saw or did not see. Futher, the expert could have become aware of the suggestive techniques and the pressure brought to bear on AW, to do the right thing and label his father as one who victimized AW's best friend, JH. Further, the expert could have shown Mr. Levitt how to proterly utilize Engum's expertise to bring this information to the jury, and show the jury that the statements of the child witnesses were unreliable. Under Barlow vs. State, 270 Ga. 54, 507 S.E. 2d 416 (1998) trial counsel could and should have introduced expert testimony for the purpose of providing the jury with information about proper techniques for interviewing children and the possible effects of the interviewing techniques actually used by Ms. Long or Detective Cooley, specifically to include the possible improper influence of AW and JH by third persons prior to any interview by the State and the failure of Ms. Long to address these issues in her interview. As the Barlow Court noted:
Child sexual abuse cases are a special lot. A major distinguishing aspect of a child sexual abuse case is how the victim came to relate the facts which led to the bringing of criminal charges. A defendant not only should be able to cross-examination prosecution witnesses regarding how they obtained their information, but also should have the chance to present expert testimony as to how such information is ideally obtained.
Citing with approval State v. Gersin, 668 NE 2d 486, 488 (Ohio 1996). An expert could have critiqued Ms. Long's interveiw techniques. Instead trial counsel did nothing to refut the State's witness, who claimed to be an expert, with an expert witness of his own. The absence of a defense expert produced what the Barlow court called an "uneven playing field." At the motion for a new trial hearing Wade demonstrated through expert witness, Amy Morton, that Stacy Long used umproper interviewing techniques and that the techniques used by the Ms. Long often elicit false information. See Defendant's Exhibit 1 to motion for new trial, and cv at pages 23-28; see also at the conclusion of D.MNT Exhibit 1, Amy Morton Affidavit/report, concluding that the interview of JH by Stacy Long is riddled with errors, leading, suggestive questions and her failure to discover whether "JH's allegations were influenced by anything other than his own experience." See also Ms. Morton's testimony at the evidentiary hearing. 11/06/08 Tr. 35-37 (Trial transcript and other documents reviewed by Morton shows that over a period of four to six months, there were actually numerous interviews of JH, as he was questioned by family members who suggested that he may be subjected to sexual abuse, specifically by Brad Wade. There were numerous conversations JH has with others, prior to the Stacy Long interview which were subject to confirmatory bias.) See also 11/06/08 Tr. 37-40 concerning leading questions of Stacy Long during her interviews with JH and AW.)
More to come. This is the entire motion that was filed with the state. We were denied our new trial recently.
2. Cuzzort Issue. The Court erred in overruling trial counsel's objection to the testimony of forensic interviewer and to the admission of the tape of the forensic interview, Stacy Long, under Cuzzort v. State, 254 Ga. 745 (1985) regarding the introduction of prior consistent statements of a witness (JH and AW) through another witness (Stacy Long) Tr. Tr. 226-230; 244-245. The Court erred in failing to grant a new trial on this enumeration of error.
3. Rape Shield Issue. Petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel based on trial consel's failure, (as well as the Assisstant District Attorney's failure,) to know the Georgia law of "Rape Shield Statute" was not applicable to child molestation cases or sexual battery cases, which prevented the jury from considering evidence that impeached the alleged victim's and other witnesses' allegations of molestation by the petitioner, and prevented Wade from presenting his defense, that JH and AW were harboring a reason to falsely accuse petitioner. The Court erred in failing to grant a new trial on this enumeration of error.
4. Hall Issue. Petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment Right to effective assistance of counsel by his trial counsel's failure to investigate, prepare, and presentlay witness and expert witness testimony pursuant to Hall v. State, 201 Ga. App. pg. 626,411 SE 2d pg. 777 (1991), that would have demonstrated that the alleged victim did not exhibit behavior typical of a sexually abused child, nor did Wade's son, AW, exhibit the behavior of one who had knowledge of his father engaging in sexual abuse of his best friend. The Court erred in failing to grant a new trial on this enumeration of error.
5. Petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by his trial counsel's failure to seek disclosure of potentially exculpatory evidence, by his failure to adequately prepare and learn Georgia law on child molestation, by underutilizing the forensic expert he hired. The Court erred in failing to grant a new trial on this enumeration of error.
Part Three Argument and Citation of Authorities
1. Petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by his trial counsel's failure to introduce expert testimony pursuant to Barlow v. State, 270 Ga. 54, 507 S. E. 2d 416 (1998) for the purpose of providing the jury with information about proper techniques for interviewing children and the possible effects of the interviewing techniques actually utilized. Goldstein v. State, 283 Ga. App. 1 (2006).
Trial counsel, Martin Levitt, hired Dr. Eric S. Engum, who is both an attorney and a clinical psychologist specializing in clinical neuropsychology, to review the 2006 videotape of JH and the April 18, 2007 vidoetape of AW. 11/06/08 Tr. 77. In his handwritten notes, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Motion for a New Trial; admitted at the 11/06/08 evidentiary hearing as Defendant's Exhibit 24, Dr. Engum recognized that this was potential issue, yet there is nothing in the record to indicate that he ever saw the tape. "This interview absolutely should have been provided to this expert (Dr. Engum)", according to the March 27, 2008 affidavit of Amy Morton, LMFT (Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist). 11/06/08 Tr. 23-24. This Court certified Ms. Morton as an expert in forensic interviewing and family therapy. There was no objection from the State. 11/06/08 Tr. 14. See Amy Morton Affidavit attached, at page 7. Amy Morton also advised, as follows:
The (prior) interview was also not presented by the defense at trial. In fact, this vidoe is not in the defense file at all. Based on Ms. Long's testimony at trial, it appears that AW's statements in this interview contradicted his statements in the interview nearly one year later and AW's testimony at trial. The expert should have been provided with this tape so that he could evaluate the change in the child's statement in context and comment on the interviewer's technique and issues such as the impact of multiple interviews (both forensic and clinical in therapy) over time and the impact of family/peer pressure. Likewise, the expert should have evaluated the interviews of the other children, Brooke, PW,BW. since they could have been in the home when the alleged incidents occurred, the absence of them witnessing anything could be significant, and their statements to the interviewer might or might not have contradicted other testimony. (See also 11/06/08 Tr. 26)
Amy Morton also suggested other documents which, based upon paperwork in the defense file were clearly in existence, should have been requested by defense counsel, but were not. She difined a forensic interview and its importance, at the hearing. 11/06/08 Tr. 29-30. She also addressed suggestibility and the problems created when forensic interviewer asks leading questions and injects bias into the interview, which impacts the integrity of that process. See 11/06/08 Tr. 30-37. Documents were requested by undersigned counsel and were provided and reviewed by Amy Morton. 11/06/08 Tr. 23-24. Those documents, which were never requested by trial counsel, are:
1. The videotape and Forensic Interview Report of the first forensic interview with AW conducted on April 21, 2006. (Marty Levitt did not request this interview because he relied on the D.A.'s notes in the D.A.'s file. 11/06/08 Tr. 101, 129
2. The videotapes and the Forensic Interview Reports of the forensic interviews with Brooke Wade, PW and BW. (Marty Levitt did not request this interview because he relied on the D.A.'s notes in the D.A.'s file 11/06/08 Tr. 101,129)
3. The Forensic Interview Report for the April 18, 2006 Forensic Interview of AW. ( Marty Levitt did not request this interview because he relied on the D.A.'s notes in the D.A.'s file. 11/06/08 Tr. 101, 129.
4. The counseling records of JH. (Levitt did not adress)
5. The medical records of JH. (Levitt did not adress)
6. The school records of JH. ( Levitt testified that he did not think he could get them 11/06/08 Tr. 82)
7. Notes, audio and video tapes and reports of every interview with AW and JH done by the police, detectives, forensic interviewers or any other party employed by the County or State. (Mr. Levitt relied on the D.A.'s notes, see above)
The documents referenced in the tapes the district attorney's office provided to defense counsel should have been requested, and should have been provided to the expert consulted by the defense, so he would be able to evaluate the case, having a clear picture of what all parties knew and saw or did not see. Futher, the expert could have become aware of the suggestive techniques and the pressure brought to bear on AW, to do the right thing and label his father as one who victimized AW's best friend, JH. Further, the expert could have shown Mr. Levitt how to proterly utilize Engum's expertise to bring this information to the jury, and show the jury that the statements of the child witnesses were unreliable. Under Barlow vs. State, 270 Ga. 54, 507 S.E. 2d 416 (1998) trial counsel could and should have introduced expert testimony for the purpose of providing the jury with information about proper techniques for interviewing children and the possible effects of the interviewing techniques actually used by Ms. Long or Detective Cooley, specifically to include the possible improper influence of AW and JH by third persons prior to any interview by the State and the failure of Ms. Long to address these issues in her interview. As the Barlow Court noted:
Child sexual abuse cases are a special lot. A major distinguishing aspect of a child sexual abuse case is how the victim came to relate the facts which led to the bringing of criminal charges. A defendant not only should be able to cross-examination prosecution witnesses regarding how they obtained their information, but also should have the chance to present expert testimony as to how such information is ideally obtained.
Citing with approval State v. Gersin, 668 NE 2d 486, 488 (Ohio 1996). An expert could have critiqued Ms. Long's interveiw techniques. Instead trial counsel did nothing to refut the State's witness, who claimed to be an expert, with an expert witness of his own. The absence of a defense expert produced what the Barlow court called an "uneven playing field." At the motion for a new trial hearing Wade demonstrated through expert witness, Amy Morton, that Stacy Long used umproper interviewing techniques and that the techniques used by the Ms. Long often elicit false information. See Defendant's Exhibit 1 to motion for new trial, and cv at pages 23-28; see also at the conclusion of D.MNT Exhibit 1, Amy Morton Affidavit/report, concluding that the interview of JH by Stacy Long is riddled with errors, leading, suggestive questions and her failure to discover whether "JH's allegations were influenced by anything other than his own experience." See also Ms. Morton's testimony at the evidentiary hearing. 11/06/08 Tr. 35-37 (Trial transcript and other documents reviewed by Morton shows that over a period of four to six months, there were actually numerous interviews of JH, as he was questioned by family members who suggested that he may be subjected to sexual abuse, specifically by Brad Wade. There were numerous conversations JH has with others, prior to the Stacy Long interview which were subject to confirmatory bias.) See also 11/06/08 Tr. 37-40 concerning leading questions of Stacy Long during her interviews with JH and AW.)
More to come. This is the entire motion that was filed with the state. We were denied our new trial recently.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
REST OF PART ONE
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
Bradley Wade was married to Rhona Wade, who is the sister of the young man, JH, who claimed to have been molested by Wade. Two children were born from that marriage, PW and BW, twins, who were two years old at the time of the events which were alleged by the State in this case. Tr. Tr. 44. Wade was previously married to Carolyn (now) Drew, and they had two children, AW and Brooke. AW was twelve and Brooke fourteen when the events alleged in this case were said to have taken place. Bradley and Rhona lived in Wade's Flat Rock, Alabama house, which he owned prior to their marriage, a small two bedroom A-frame in Dekalb County Alabama (Tr. Tr. 31). The master bedroom and bath upstairs were located in a loft area, and the second bedroom and bath was on the main level of the house, where the kitchen, family room and dining room were also located, in an "open" floor plan. Tr. Tr. 71-77. Photos included as Exhibit.
JH was 14-15 years old at the time of the events alleged in the indictment; JH lived with his mother, Kathleen Williams, in Flat Rock, Alabama, but he visited Bradley and Rhona's home often because Bradley had a son, AW, who was 12 years old, who became a close friend of JH's. The homes of Bradley Wade and Kathleen Williams were within 10 miles of one another. AW who lived with his mother, Carolyn Drew, in Wildwood, Georgia. When Wade went to pick up AW, he had to enter the State of Georgia to get to the house in Wildwood.
Parties related to JH, some testifying at trial, were Eric Casey, JH's half brother (pay attention, this will get confusing) whose full blooded sister is Melissa Giles; Christy Wooten, his (JH's) oldest half sister Tr. Tr. 25, who is Rhona Wade's full blooded sister Tr. Tr. 26; MH(minor), his (JH's) full blooded sister with whom JH shares the same father (Randy Holland) and mother. Tr. Tr. 23-25. His (JH's) step-father is Billy Williams, his mother's fourth husband. (That we are aware of)
It was the trial testimony of JH that Bradley Wade was like a father figure to him (Tr. Tr. 40). They wrestled and watched movies together, but most of the time spent at Brad and Rhona's house was spent playing with Brad's son, AW. Tr. Tr. 40-41. JH and AW, Brad's son were best friends, and they saw each other frequently at Brad and Rhhona's home in Dekalb County, Alabama. Tr. Tr. 35-36. In 2004 JH began having seizures. Tr. Tr. 36. He went to the hospital and was diagnosed with epilepsy. Tr. Tr. 36-37. He was put on the medication, Kepra, 2000 milligrams a day. Tr. Tr. 36-38. As part of his treatment for epilepsy, JH was asked by his doctors to keep a diary. Tr. Tr. 39. Because of his medical experience and background, Bradley Wade was involved in the keeping of the diary. See MNT Hearing Exhibit....these are emails between Bradley Wade and the medical personnel treating JH.
At trial, JH made numerous claims of molestation ( touching, masturbation, grabbing privates while wrestling, being asked to masturbate) taking place in Alabama at the home of Bradley and Rhona Wade. According to JH, his sister, Rhona, was in the house at the time these act took place. JH claimed that he and Brad wrestled in the hallway by the back bedroom while Rhona was on the couch in the living room. Tr. Tr. 47-49. JH claimed that when Brad checked his penis in the shower that it was only he and Wade ( Tr. Tr. 49), while AW claimed that he was in the bathroom with JH when Brad Wade entered the bathroom. (Tr. Tr. 161).
In fact, AW recollected that he was in the car with JH and his father when Wade allegedly asked JH to masturbate, and that this took place in Alabama. Tr. Tr. 160. AW claimed it was shocking yet he and JH never discussed it. Tr. Tr. 161. AW wanted JH to be over at his dad's "every chance.....because we were best friends and got along well." Tr. Tr. 164.
JH testified there was no masturbation in the car.
In a 5/22/06 interview with investigator Cooley, Carolyn Drew reported that AW had told her he was in the shower with JH when Brad came in and pulled back JH's foreskin telling JH he needed to clean it. OUTCRY
1. Easter 2006, JH told half brother Eric that Brad made him ejaculate in front of him.
2. Spoke to Eric and Christy the next morning-they asked him a lot of questions; also spoke to Miss Stacy Long.
3. That's all JH told Eric; after that it "Moved on th lawyers and stuff.
The acts which took place in Georgia involved allegations that Wade asked JH to show him his penis, and Wade would grab it to be sure it was clean. According to JH this activity took place on the interstate with Wade as they went to pick up AW at his home in Wildwood, Georgia. Tr. Tr. 50-52. The other acts alleged to have taken place in Georgia involved Wade telling JH to show him his penis while on the interstate. Tr. Tr. 49-58. ( Keep in mind folks, AW lived with Brad and Rhona for 10 months of the year 2005, so how many of those Wildwood trips do you think he would have made??)
JH and AW tried to lock themselves in the bathroom to shower when they were at Wade's house. Tr. Tr. 165. Notes from the Relationship Center, where AW underwent therapy, show that his mother reported that he inappropriately touched his eight year old half sister. AW defended the touching by saying she kicked him in the crotch. He tearfully admitted that he longs to have an intact family and resents his half sister because she has one. AW had been suspended from school five time; he has chronic anger issues. When AW and his sister Brooke, rode back from Indiana with his "cool aunt", Tracy Ezernack, his mother reported to investigator Cooley on 5/22/06, that AW told her "out of the blue" that JH knows a lot about sex and has exposed his penis to AW thinking it was funny. AW also said JH knows a lot about phone sex. Brad had asked Carolyn prior to this, if AW had said anything to her about JH "messing" with him. Carolyn Drew reported that she walked into the bathroom when AW was eight years old and saw him masturbating. Another witness told our (and prior counsel's) investigator(s) that her son, (MINOR) saw porn at the Drew's house with AW, that AW rubbed his penis against a wet dog, and that AW masturbated.
On 11/20/06 the clinical psychologist received a phone call from AW's mother concerning his continued inappropriate touching of his half sister, AD, age 8, by his rubbing her chest and butt for the past year. He also tries to touch his teenage sister's breasts (Brooke), singing a morbid lullaby. At an 11/27/06 counseling session, AW denied inappropriate behavior. See reports and counseling sessions, 11/06/08 MTN D. Exhibits 17,18,19. None of the sexual conduct of JH and AW came out at trial due to the Court's pre-trial ruling that the Rape Shield Statute disallowed it. Evid. Hear. Tr. 137-139.
Although a police report was made in Alabama, the only prosecution of Wade took place in Dade County, Georgia.
NEXT IS PART TWO AND ENUMERATION OF ERROR
Now this is just me talking for a minute here........
Rhona never told the people in the two Alabama counties about seeing anything, but when she got to Dade County, she all of sudden remembered that about "a year prior to the allegations, she got up in the middle of the night and saw Brad kneeling over JH rubbing his back and Brad was naked". She didn't remember this until she got to Dade. And she just turned around and went back to bed and said never said a word about it. She continued to have her brother over 6 and 7 days a week after she supposedly witnessed this. Now people, really???? Can you even believe she said that??? And when asked why she didn't tell this to the Alabama authorities, under oath she said, "they did not keep in touch with me like Jennifer Cooley did".
Bradley Wade was married to Rhona Wade, who is the sister of the young man, JH, who claimed to have been molested by Wade. Two children were born from that marriage, PW and BW, twins, who were two years old at the time of the events which were alleged by the State in this case. Tr. Tr. 44. Wade was previously married to Carolyn (now) Drew, and they had two children, AW and Brooke. AW was twelve and Brooke fourteen when the events alleged in this case were said to have taken place. Bradley and Rhona lived in Wade's Flat Rock, Alabama house, which he owned prior to their marriage, a small two bedroom A-frame in Dekalb County Alabama (Tr. Tr. 31). The master bedroom and bath upstairs were located in a loft area, and the second bedroom and bath was on the main level of the house, where the kitchen, family room and dining room were also located, in an "open" floor plan. Tr. Tr. 71-77. Photos included as Exhibit.
JH was 14-15 years old at the time of the events alleged in the indictment; JH lived with his mother, Kathleen Williams, in Flat Rock, Alabama, but he visited Bradley and Rhona's home often because Bradley had a son, AW, who was 12 years old, who became a close friend of JH's. The homes of Bradley Wade and Kathleen Williams were within 10 miles of one another. AW who lived with his mother, Carolyn Drew, in Wildwood, Georgia. When Wade went to pick up AW, he had to enter the State of Georgia to get to the house in Wildwood.
Parties related to JH, some testifying at trial, were Eric Casey, JH's half brother (pay attention, this will get confusing) whose full blooded sister is Melissa Giles; Christy Wooten, his (JH's) oldest half sister Tr. Tr. 25, who is Rhona Wade's full blooded sister Tr. Tr. 26; MH(minor), his (JH's) full blooded sister with whom JH shares the same father (Randy Holland) and mother. Tr. Tr. 23-25. His (JH's) step-father is Billy Williams, his mother's fourth husband. (That we are aware of)
It was the trial testimony of JH that Bradley Wade was like a father figure to him (Tr. Tr. 40). They wrestled and watched movies together, but most of the time spent at Brad and Rhona's house was spent playing with Brad's son, AW. Tr. Tr. 40-41. JH and AW, Brad's son were best friends, and they saw each other frequently at Brad and Rhhona's home in Dekalb County, Alabama. Tr. Tr. 35-36. In 2004 JH began having seizures. Tr. Tr. 36. He went to the hospital and was diagnosed with epilepsy. Tr. Tr. 36-37. He was put on the medication, Kepra, 2000 milligrams a day. Tr. Tr. 36-38. As part of his treatment for epilepsy, JH was asked by his doctors to keep a diary. Tr. Tr. 39. Because of his medical experience and background, Bradley Wade was involved in the keeping of the diary. See MNT Hearing Exhibit....these are emails between Bradley Wade and the medical personnel treating JH.
At trial, JH made numerous claims of molestation ( touching, masturbation, grabbing privates while wrestling, being asked to masturbate) taking place in Alabama at the home of Bradley and Rhona Wade. According to JH, his sister, Rhona, was in the house at the time these act took place. JH claimed that he and Brad wrestled in the hallway by the back bedroom while Rhona was on the couch in the living room. Tr. Tr. 47-49. JH claimed that when Brad checked his penis in the shower that it was only he and Wade ( Tr. Tr. 49), while AW claimed that he was in the bathroom with JH when Brad Wade entered the bathroom. (Tr. Tr. 161).
In fact, AW recollected that he was in the car with JH and his father when Wade allegedly asked JH to masturbate, and that this took place in Alabama. Tr. Tr. 160. AW claimed it was shocking yet he and JH never discussed it. Tr. Tr. 161. AW wanted JH to be over at his dad's "every chance.....because we were best friends and got along well." Tr. Tr. 164.
JH testified there was no masturbation in the car.
In a 5/22/06 interview with investigator Cooley, Carolyn Drew reported that AW had told her he was in the shower with JH when Brad came in and pulled back JH's foreskin telling JH he needed to clean it. OUTCRY
1. Easter 2006, JH told half brother Eric that Brad made him ejaculate in front of him.
2. Spoke to Eric and Christy the next morning-they asked him a lot of questions; also spoke to Miss Stacy Long.
3. That's all JH told Eric; after that it "Moved on th lawyers and stuff.
The acts which took place in Georgia involved allegations that Wade asked JH to show him his penis, and Wade would grab it to be sure it was clean. According to JH this activity took place on the interstate with Wade as they went to pick up AW at his home in Wildwood, Georgia. Tr. Tr. 50-52. The other acts alleged to have taken place in Georgia involved Wade telling JH to show him his penis while on the interstate. Tr. Tr. 49-58. ( Keep in mind folks, AW lived with Brad and Rhona for 10 months of the year 2005, so how many of those Wildwood trips do you think he would have made??)
JH and AW tried to lock themselves in the bathroom to shower when they were at Wade's house. Tr. Tr. 165. Notes from the Relationship Center, where AW underwent therapy, show that his mother reported that he inappropriately touched his eight year old half sister. AW defended the touching by saying she kicked him in the crotch. He tearfully admitted that he longs to have an intact family and resents his half sister because she has one. AW had been suspended from school five time; he has chronic anger issues. When AW and his sister Brooke, rode back from Indiana with his "cool aunt", Tracy Ezernack, his mother reported to investigator Cooley on 5/22/06, that AW told her "out of the blue" that JH knows a lot about sex and has exposed his penis to AW thinking it was funny. AW also said JH knows a lot about phone sex. Brad had asked Carolyn prior to this, if AW had said anything to her about JH "messing" with him. Carolyn Drew reported that she walked into the bathroom when AW was eight years old and saw him masturbating. Another witness told our (and prior counsel's) investigator(s) that her son, (MINOR) saw porn at the Drew's house with AW, that AW rubbed his penis against a wet dog, and that AW masturbated.
On 11/20/06 the clinical psychologist received a phone call from AW's mother concerning his continued inappropriate touching of his half sister, AD, age 8, by his rubbing her chest and butt for the past year. He also tries to touch his teenage sister's breasts (Brooke), singing a morbid lullaby. At an 11/27/06 counseling session, AW denied inappropriate behavior. See reports and counseling sessions, 11/06/08 MTN D. Exhibits 17,18,19. None of the sexual conduct of JH and AW came out at trial due to the Court's pre-trial ruling that the Rape Shield Statute disallowed it. Evid. Hear. Tr. 137-139.
Although a police report was made in Alabama, the only prosecution of Wade took place in Dade County, Georgia.
NEXT IS PART TWO AND ENUMERATION OF ERROR
Now this is just me talking for a minute here........
Rhona never told the people in the two Alabama counties about seeing anything, but when she got to Dade County, she all of sudden remembered that about "a year prior to the allegations, she got up in the middle of the night and saw Brad kneeling over JH rubbing his back and Brad was naked". She didn't remember this until she got to Dade. And she just turned around and went back to bed and said never said a word about it. She continued to have her brother over 6 and 7 days a week after she supposedly witnessed this. Now people, really???? Can you even believe she said that??? And when asked why she didn't tell this to the Alabama authorities, under oath she said, "they did not keep in touch with me like Jennifer Cooley did".
The Motion for new trial...went to Dade co. and then to State Court of Appeals
Part One
Statement of Proceedings Below
(let me just say this, Len Gregor lied to the Grand Jury to get the indictment. He told them that there would be 2 people testifying against Brad for this that were not. One of them doesn't even know Brad (we have spoke to him since) and the other is Brad's Pastor. Who has supported Brad in his innocence from day one)
Bradley Wade was charged in a four count indictment on March 8, 2007, as follows:
Count one charged with a violation of O.C.G.A. 16-6-4(a) the offense of child molestation, between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005, that Wade did commit an immoral and indecent act to JH, a child under the age of sixteen years, with the intent to arouse and satisfy the sexual desires of said accused by touching said child's penis with his hand; Count Two charged Wade with child molestation O.C.G.A. 16-6-4 (a), same dates as count one, alleging that Wade asked JH to show Wade his penis. Count Three charged Wade with the offense of child molestation, O.C.G.A. 16-6-4 (a) same dates, by asking JH to masturbate in the presence of Wade; Count Four charged Wade with the offense of sexual battery O.C.G.A. 16-6-22.1 same dates, in that Wade did make physical contact with body parts of JH without JH's consent. Wade was convicted on all counts, after a trial by jury which took place in the Superior Court of Dade County before the (using this term lightly) 'Honorable' Kristina Cook Connelly Graham, (who was not even legally sanctioned at the time) on May 14th-17th, 2007. Wade was represented by Chattanooga attorney, Martin Levitt. (who we have recently been told by several atty's that he basically rolled over on Brad). The state of Georgia was represented by ADA Len Gregor.
At the conclusion of the State's evidence, counsel for Wade made an oral motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the following grounds: (1) that the State had not proven its case by proof beyond a reasonable doubt; (2)that all four allegations consist of one offense, in that in order for the masturbation to take place, JH would have to show his penis and talk about his penis, citing the case of Burrell vs. State, an armed robbery case where the state should have been made to elect counts to go to the jury due tot he overlapping nature of the charges; (3) that the state should elect counts because there is no specificity of dates and it is hard to defend a person and prejudicial to the defendant if he {the victim} says he {the perp} did it three times or fourteen times. Tr. Tr. 376-382. The motion was denied. Tr. Tr. 382. A second motion made on the same grounds was also denied. Tr. Tr. 494-495.
Wade was convicted on all counts of the indictment. {Tr. Tr. stands for Trial Transcript}
Represented by new counsel, Linda S. Sheffield, Wade's sentencing took place on March 6, 2008. (been in county jail this whole time). Wade was sentenced to 20 years to serve 10 years, with Count Four merging with Count One.
Wade filed his Motion for a New Trial in March of 2008. Index to record 62. In August 2008, Wade filed a First Supplemental Motion for a New Trial, after receiving additional information from the files of the District Attorney. Index to Record 106.
The Motion for New Trial of Defendant, Bradley Wade, was heard before the 'Honorable' Kristina Cook Connelly Graham on the 6th day of November, 2008. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court ordered the parties to file briefs in support of their position. Index to Record 135. Post Trial Brief Defendant Index to Record at 136. On June 18, 2009 the Motion for a New Trial was denied. (It took Judge Connelly 7 and 1/2 months to make her decision)
On June 23, 2009 Wade's Notice of Appeal was docketed in the Superior Court of Dade County, appealing, inter alia, from the Order denying Defendant's Motion for a New Trial entered on about June 18, 2009. This is an Order from a final judgment of a Superior Court. The record was not filed with this Court until September 2009. The two sentence Order of Judge Cook Connelly Graham (Index to record 208) was entered during the period of time the file was lost. The file was located in an office previously occupied by Judge Cook Connelly Graham's law clerk, who was out of state caring for her sick mother.
Tomorrow: STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
Statement of Proceedings Below
(let me just say this, Len Gregor lied to the Grand Jury to get the indictment. He told them that there would be 2 people testifying against Brad for this that were not. One of them doesn't even know Brad (we have spoke to him since) and the other is Brad's Pastor. Who has supported Brad in his innocence from day one)
Bradley Wade was charged in a four count indictment on March 8, 2007, as follows:
Count one charged with a violation of O.C.G.A. 16-6-4(a) the offense of child molestation, between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005, that Wade did commit an immoral and indecent act to JH, a child under the age of sixteen years, with the intent to arouse and satisfy the sexual desires of said accused by touching said child's penis with his hand; Count Two charged Wade with child molestation O.C.G.A. 16-6-4 (a), same dates as count one, alleging that Wade asked JH to show Wade his penis. Count Three charged Wade with the offense of child molestation, O.C.G.A. 16-6-4 (a) same dates, by asking JH to masturbate in the presence of Wade; Count Four charged Wade with the offense of sexual battery O.C.G.A. 16-6-22.1 same dates, in that Wade did make physical contact with body parts of JH without JH's consent. Wade was convicted on all counts, after a trial by jury which took place in the Superior Court of Dade County before the (using this term lightly) 'Honorable' Kristina Cook Connelly Graham, (who was not even legally sanctioned at the time) on May 14th-17th, 2007. Wade was represented by Chattanooga attorney, Martin Levitt. (who we have recently been told by several atty's that he basically rolled over on Brad). The state of Georgia was represented by ADA Len Gregor.
At the conclusion of the State's evidence, counsel for Wade made an oral motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the following grounds: (1) that the State had not proven its case by proof beyond a reasonable doubt; (2)that all four allegations consist of one offense, in that in order for the masturbation to take place, JH would have to show his penis and talk about his penis, citing the case of Burrell vs. State, an armed robbery case where the state should have been made to elect counts to go to the jury due tot he overlapping nature of the charges; (3) that the state should elect counts because there is no specificity of dates and it is hard to defend a person and prejudicial to the defendant if he {the victim} says he {the perp} did it three times or fourteen times. Tr. Tr. 376-382. The motion was denied. Tr. Tr. 382. A second motion made on the same grounds was also denied. Tr. Tr. 494-495.
Wade was convicted on all counts of the indictment. {Tr. Tr. stands for Trial Transcript}
Represented by new counsel, Linda S. Sheffield, Wade's sentencing took place on March 6, 2008. (been in county jail this whole time). Wade was sentenced to 20 years to serve 10 years, with Count Four merging with Count One.
Wade filed his Motion for a New Trial in March of 2008. Index to record 62. In August 2008, Wade filed a First Supplemental Motion for a New Trial, after receiving additional information from the files of the District Attorney. Index to Record 106.
The Motion for New Trial of Defendant, Bradley Wade, was heard before the 'Honorable' Kristina Cook Connelly Graham on the 6th day of November, 2008. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court ordered the parties to file briefs in support of their position. Index to Record 135. Post Trial Brief Defendant Index to Record at 136. On June 18, 2009 the Motion for a New Trial was denied. (It took Judge Connelly 7 and 1/2 months to make her decision)
On June 23, 2009 Wade's Notice of Appeal was docketed in the Superior Court of Dade County, appealing, inter alia, from the Order denying Defendant's Motion for a New Trial entered on about June 18, 2009. This is an Order from a final judgment of a Superior Court. The record was not filed with this Court until September 2009. The two sentence Order of Judge Cook Connelly Graham (Index to record 208) was entered during the period of time the file was lost. The file was located in an office previously occupied by Judge Cook Connelly Graham's law clerk, who was out of state caring for her sick mother.
Tomorrow: STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Sad day....Short post.....
Well, everybody, the state appeals court denied my brother's new trial. We are terribly disheartened. But, we will fight on. We will go to the next level. A level that we had been told would most likely have to happen, but we certainly were holding out for the state to overturn it. They did not. Our next step is the Supreme Court of Georgia. I will continue to post, especially now. I am not going to try to put all of transcripts of Sherry Dobbins after all. It is a lot of information and if I don't do the whole thing and only do certain parts, it would be confusing. I am going to post from the motion for new trial transcript. It is mostly our attorney stating facts.
I am thinking that by putting these interviews on here word for word is confusing some. so I will try to clear things up by putting the motion transcripts and quote laws as our attorney did. It may help to tie up some loose ends for some people as well. Now, I am gonna get a little personal for a minute.
We are so disappointed. I am out of energy for anything today, but tomorrow I will begin my blogging again. Please keep us all, but mostly my brother in your prayers!! I know when the other side reads this, they will be pointing and laughing, and that is fine. But, make no mistake, I will fight to the bitter end for my innocent brother!! This must be the way God has intended this to be, because now our story grows. Bigger and bigger. This is what God wants. We believe that with all of our hearts. My poor mother is devastated, but my brother and I just keep getting stronger and smarter.! When you lay your head down tonight or get on your knees, will you please remember us! To all a good night.
I am thinking that by putting these interviews on here word for word is confusing some. so I will try to clear things up by putting the motion transcripts and quote laws as our attorney did. It may help to tie up some loose ends for some people as well. Now, I am gonna get a little personal for a minute.
We are so disappointed. I am out of energy for anything today, but tomorrow I will begin my blogging again. Please keep us all, but mostly my brother in your prayers!! I know when the other side reads this, they will be pointing and laughing, and that is fine. But, make no mistake, I will fight to the bitter end for my innocent brother!! This must be the way God has intended this to be, because now our story grows. Bigger and bigger. This is what God wants. We believe that with all of our hearts. My poor mother is devastated, but my brother and I just keep getting stronger and smarter.! When you lay your head down tonight or get on your knees, will you please remember us! To all a good night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
