Does the Sixth Amendment Still Matter?
A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari requires briefs of amici curiae
Many of you have followed the vicissitudes of my appellate journey and efforts to overturn my wrongful conviction. I understood in 2019 that the New Mexico courts were not even remotely interested in addressing my constitutional claims that I was convicted in violation of my Sixth Amendment right to confront my only accuser. When that became clear the focus of my efforts then shifted to the federal courts and the petitions that would need to be filed in order to present my constitutional claims to the federal judiciary, beginning with the Federal District Court in New Mexico, and, if necessary, to the United States Court of Appeals (Tenth Circuit). Though I understood that if my efforts failed to convince either of these federal courts that, inevitably, I would need to press my case to the Highest Court in the nation I honestly didn't think it would come to that.
Most of us possess a general understanding that both state and federal courts exist. We understand that there are likewise state and federal laws, and when these laws are violated the individual who suffers or is otherwise prejudiced from this violation has the right to petition the respective courts for relief. That being said, there are instances when certain constitutional rights are violated, it's the State who does it, and it's the aggrieved person who must file a petition, first with the state courts, and, if the state courts fail to address the issue (and the issue happens to be related to a federal constitutional right) the individual can then present his issue before the federal judiciary, likewise asking for relief.
In my case I was prevented at trial from confronting and cross-examining my only accuser, which happened to be the only direct evidence of my guilt in state's case against me. In other words, I was prevented from defending myself from a very serious accusation of murder, and the result was a wrongful conviction that I have been fighting against for 20 years. And for two decades the state and federal courts refused to even address my constitutional claims related to the guarantees set forth under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. That is, until recently, when the United States Court of Appeals (Tenth Circuit) ruled, and, set a very dangerous precedent of both national relevance and importance as it relates to Confrontational rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and affirmed repeatedly by the United States Supreme Court.
The Circuit Court determined that since the Supreme Court has never specifically said that a non-testifying codefendant's accusation deemed by rules of evidence to be an excited utterance and introduced at trial through his spouse is "testimonial" there was no violation of "clearly established federal law." And, yes, I have patiently waited like a protagonist in a Kafka novel for this absurd determination.
Which means that I have no recourse other than to present my case to the United States Supreme Court and request its intervention in addressing a question of national relevance that affects everyone. The question presented to the Court is as follows (quoting from my Petition for Writ of Certiorari mailed 8/16/2024):
This Court deemed it prudent to "leave for another day any effort to spell out a comprehensive definition of 'testimonial,'" when it determined in Crawford to make a course adjustment on Confrontation Clause jurisprudence. In the wake of its decision courts across the nation, both state appellate and federal circuit, have charted different courses in determining when, if ever, out-of-court statements such as excited utterances are testimonial for animating Confrontation Clause protections guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. These differing courses are inconsistent, at best, and, in general, counterintuitive to the general understanding and this Court's ruling that "leaving the regulation of out-of-court statements to the law of evidence would render the Confrontation Clause powerless to prevent even the most flagrant inquisitorial practices." Which is precisely why this Court is urged to weigh in and settle the dispute on: can a criminal defendant be convicted on the out-of-court accusation of a non-testifying codefendant determined by the trial court to be an excited utterance?
Our civil liberties as a nation have always been under constant attack by State interests that have little to nothing to do with our ideals of justice, fairness, or the intentions of the Framers who drafted the Bill of Rights for our protection from governmental overreach. In the setting of criminal justice, state and federal prosecutors often look for ways to avoid adhering to rule of law, as in this case. As can be seen in my Statement of the Case:
Petitioner was convicted of murder, armed robbery, and five counts of tampering with evidence. The State's case-in-chief was entirely circumstantial and built around the testimonial statements of the first individual taken into custody for questioning based on information received from a crime-stoppers hotline tip. The man taken into custody immediately shifted the blame to the petitioner throughout three recorded testimonial statements given to detectives throughout their investigation. The challenge, however, for the State's case was that the more they investigated the more lies from their "witness" they discovered; and the more lies they discovered the less likely it became that the witness's testimony would prove beneficial if passed through the "crucible of cross-examination" as the Crawford Court required. This created a quandary for the State's case, in that, its witness had no credibility and due to the high profile nature of the case, through the media, and the familial connections of the victim "justice" needed to be done.
Based on a followup conversation with the witness's wife nearly a year after the crime had taken place, the State discovered that its witness (not yet codefendant) had apparently made the same accusation against the petitioner, that was made to police, to his wife hours after the crime had taken place. The wife never mentioned this statement to police when she was originally questioned days after the crime when her husband was taken into custody, but nevertheless the State captured her new statement as an opportunity to introduce the witness's accusation against the petitioner without having to adhere to Crawford's demands, so long as the trial court agreed that the declarant's accusation was an excited utterance under Rule 11-803 (B) NMRA. The witness was then charged with a fourth degree felony based on his own self-inculpatory statements and proven lies, and in that moment became the "codefendant."
This case-dispositive issue is the basis of the Question presented for this Court's consideration. An issue where state appellate and federal circuit courts are divided on whether an accusation, as described herein, is "testimonial" for the purpose of triggering the constitutional protections of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause...
Ultimately, the question the Supreme Court needs to answer is one of fairness to any criminal defendant. Is a prosecutor allowed to present an accusation of guilt through a codefendant's wife so that the real accuser doesn't have to take the stand and face cross-examination? This seems counterintuitive given that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that codefendant accusations are "inherently unreliable" because such an individual has a strong motive to lie and shift the blame to someone else. That being said, this is the exact precedent the U.S. Court of Appeals is attempting to establish unless the Supreme Court grants Certiorari and responds to the question and issue before it.
Which is why I am asking everyone reading this post to please help this cause by getting the word out to justice-minded organizations, such as, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, the Innocence Project, Centurion Ministries (Princeton), the Center on Wrongful Convictions, the New Mexico Innocence and Justice Project, the Human Rights Defense Center, and any other organization that you can possibly think of that hasn't been mentioned. I will be making it known to the Clerk of the Supreme Court that I authorize any and all amici curiae briefs, because it's these "friend of the Court" briefs that help petitioners such as myself present the larger importance to the nation's collective interests on any given issue.
I am fully aware just how unlikely it is for the Supreme Court to respond to a petitioner's call for help, even more so when that plea is coming from a prison cell, written by hand, and without legal aid. Furthermore, the injustice of my wrongful conviction can't be undone, in that there is no recovering the decades lost, but, the governmental overreach that made this loss possible can be rectified, thereby preventing this tragedy from repeating itself. If you would like to see a copy of the entire petition filed with the Supreme Court please feel free to send me a message on this platform and I will gladly email you a PDF file.
