UNDULY SUGGESTIVE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES
On 8-22-09 Detroit Police (DPD) officers were looking for a suspect involved in a string of robberies. The reporting officer said I fit the description, which is impossible because no statement or description was given, until after the DPD directed the complainant’s attention towards me as the suspect.
While I sat alone in a detention cell, I was subjected to an unduly suggestive identification procedure consisting of the Complainant and several DPD officers, which failed to have counsel present on my behalf. The arresting officer also told the complainant I was in custody for another robbery, when I was actually in custody for narcotics and a weapon. The officer in charge did in fact make suggestive comments to the complainant that I was the suspect who committed the crime.
A week later the DPD manufactured a live lineup, in an attempt to bolster their unduly suggestive detention-cell identification procedure. At the time of the live line-up, the whole right side of my face and chin were swollen. Neither my therapist nor doctor were called to testify about my physical appearance in the line-up.
The complainant’s conflicting testimony is riddled with inaccurate and faulty identifications. Initially, the complainant testified that he didn't get to observe the culprit. The complainant testified that he identified my picture in a photo array, and by the detention-cell identification, and also because of the color of my T–Shirt, even after the precinct’s detention-cell identification procedure, the complainant’s description still didn't match mine.
In the complainant’s testimony the robber was clean-shaven, and the complainant only had a few short seconds of facing the robber, before being turned around to face the opposite direction, and his attention was on the weapon and on the suspect’s hands, and that the robber didn't wear a mask. The complainant also kept stating he remembered the culprit's eyes.
My trial judge didn't stand by his initial ruling that the taint caused by the unduly suggestive detention-cell identification, was not inadvertent and must be purged because it would prejudice me; and later the U.S. District Court found the detention-cell identification at the police station was in fact unduly suggestive.
The judge abused his discretion violating my Constitutional Rights when he allowed the tainted identification to stand; and stated there APPEARS to be an independent basis for identification, despite my trial lawyer suggesting that the in-court and photo array identification, were prejudiced by the DPD’s unduly suggestive detention-cell identification.
Furthermore, My Expert forensic psychologist affidavit proves the jury wasn't properly educated or instructed on eyewitness identification. That the suggestive Identification procedure caused a mistaken Identification by the eyewitness complainant.
INCONCLUSIVE PROSECUTION VIDEO
The prosecution also introduced and narrated a video to sway the jury, the video revealed there were no features, weapons, or robbery shown. There were only vague images and colors.
MY TRIAL ATTORNEY FAILED TO PRESENT AN EFFECTIVE AND MEANINGFUL DEFENSE
My trial attorney was ineffective in failing to interview or call my alibi witnesses, although I had supplied him with their names and locations. My alibi witnesses proved my whereabouts during the time of the crime and were willing and able to testify on my behalf. My right to present a meaningful defense was violated. All of my witnesses were in my transcripts and listed on my "Notice Of Intent To Assert Alibi Defense List" but these witnesses were never interviewed nor introduced at trial, and therefore not considered by the jury.
I now have my alibi witness's affidavit which proves my innocence and that I was wrongly convicted, therefore requiring a new trial. The affidavit proves my innocence, stating where I was, what I was doing, who I was with at the time of the crime, and the fact it was impossible for me to have committed the crime.
I also have an eyewitness affidavit stating he clearly saw the person who did the crime. He knows the man who did it, his nickname, description, clothing, and where the robber took off to, and what he did when leaving.
SUPPRESSED POLICE REPORT FILES
The DPD crime report file was suppressed, and I had to hire LegalAccessPlus to obtain it; furthermore, the crime report proves that several eyewitnesses described the person responsible and that he had a completely different description than me.
Please send any responses to:
13117 Santa Rosa
Detroit Mi 48238
Jpay me directly, or write me at:
Frederick Martin #338567
Macomb Correctional Facility
34625 - 26 Mile Rd.
Lenox Township, MI 48048