Hi all,

My name's Cary, I'm a criminal justice-psychology student in New York. I'm in a collective called Wrongfully Accused, which is exactly what it sounds like. Our goal is to prove people's innocence and start a conversation around wrongful convictions.

I'm putting together a paper on getting access to mental healthcare (psychiatric medications, therapy, group therapy, etc) in prison while wrongfully incarcerated. I'd love to hear from anyone on this page about their experience getting mental health treatment, what they've witnessed, or where the system could improve.

I'm hoping to work in this field after I graduate, and would be so grateful if anybody shared anything on this topic!

Thank you so much.

Hello,

I have a friend who has been wrongfully prosecuted and sentence for conspiracy for murder. He needs help with legal advice badly. He is in Pennsylvania. He is trying to bring attention to his case so that people are aware and hopefully someone can direct us in the right direction. He has public defender and can not afford a lawyer.

He sent me an excerpt on what to say as well:

I was convicted for something that I had nothing to do with and that building a backing/support system may make the courts hesitant to make decisions that blatantly disregard facts and are contrary to the law. I am convicted for conspiracy in a case where the lead detective testified that there was no evidence of any conspiracy which is why I have no codefendants. the judge said that I could be convicted based on hearsay and speculation both of which have been deemed unconstitutional/insufficient to sustain a conviction as the burden of proof has always been guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I appreciate each and every one of you who chooses to stand with me and support this cause, Thank you!

Any advice on how we can go about this?

​

Dear Redditors,

I am currently enrolled in the AP Research course and working on a paper analyzing the spectrum of different physical effects that individuals in solitary confinement face. For my research paper, I will need to provide a questionnaire asking individuals what physical effects they faced while in solitary confinement. Here is the questionnaire…

Questionnaire

1. Did you experience any physical health problems before entering solitary confinement?
2. Does your family have a history of physical health problems relevant to the physical issues you faced in solitary confinement?
3. What physical health problems were either worsened or made present while in solitary confinement? (include age when each issue was first made present)
4. What physical effects developed, worsened, or alleviated after your release?
5. What specific conditions of solitary confinement most likely caused your physical health problems?

In a written statement, James said, "The minister's decision to refer his case for a rehearing in the Manitoba Court of Appeal is a huge step for Mr. Sanderson in his quest to clear his name."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/robert-sanderson-appeal-murder-conviction-1.6746685

In 2018 I was wrongfully stripped of my freedom which caused me to spend 3 years of my life in a county jail. This horrific, false allegation was fabricated in self preservation due to this narcissistic female not wanting to get caught up by her boyfriend after departing from his bed at 4am. While I was in custody I was mentally tortured by many things: (1) an abundance of unanswered questions that eventually got the better of me, (2) the death of my brother, (3) my family's pain of being concerned about losing me for life, and (4) being convicted for life for a crime that I did not commit. Now that I somewhat possess my liberty I wish to legally obtain my justice by obtaining those answers that I find myself pondering about everyday. I plan to approach this matter with a professional private investigator with experience in these kinds of circumstances that will be guided by an appellate attorney. The reason for this method is because the D.A. attached a stipulation to my plea deal. That stipulation is if she confesses then I am exonerated from this conviction. This life that I am currently living is literally a living hell for an African-American. I didn't think that my life would continue to be a continuous series of unfair hardships. These hardships have lead me to realize that I need to be the one to change this system for the better ,especially in regards to unfair treatments towards African- American. So I am here to ask of help from you all- strangers, but far distant relatives of society. Does anyone have any ideas of how I can extract the truth from this fucked up individual and where can I get crowd funding from a website that would keep my info discreet, so that it won't be released to the public and jeopardize my chance of proving my innocence?

Any thoughts on Killer in Question Episode 1?

ST. LOUIS – Jurors we spoke with were angry about what FOX 2 revealed to them after their guilty verdict. We told them about what we had witnessed at trial when they were whisked away from the courtroom. I shared pages of notes I had transcribed from secretive hearings in the middle of the 2013 Betsy Faria murder trial.

As one juror put it, “My whole life I’ve heard ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth…’ Well, that’s leaving out some of the truth.” That statement was a departure from what prosecutor Leah Askey told FOX 2 right after the verdict when she said that’s how the system works. It’s also interesting to note in this report that the jurors were suspicious of Russ Faria’s four alibi witnesses.

While the testimony of those witnesses was based on fact and backed up by cellphone evidence, it appears the jurors may have been struck by the former prosecutor’s baseless accusations about the witnesses. We might never know about those wild accusations if not for our presence in court.

Effect of trial court ruling playing a role in subterfuge of a fair legal test.

Trial court denied our motion for acquittal. From what I've come to understand, that was the judge deciding that the state had proved a prima facie case, to the judge's satisfaction, and the evidence if believed by the jury, supported a finding of guilty of "murder- by shooting through the mouth". And that's the premise on which the defense continued, nothing else. For the trial courts judgement to have its binding effect wouldn't the state be collaterally estopped from a claim that conflicts their own prima facie case that had been judged sufficient? Point being simply that no one can PROVE that 2+2=4 AND that 2+2 DOESN'T equal 4 without contradicting himself. So, if I understand correctly, the judge effectively said and put forward , "The state has sufficiently proven that Jason Green shot Ledlow (by denying motion for acquittal)" , AND THEN "the state has sufficiently proven that Jason Green DIDN'T shoot Ledlow (by instructions)". For Either of those to be true, one would HAVE to be fatally variant of the other, but only one of them is supported and spelled out by an indictment. Only one of them was argued by the state. And only one of them had evidence and testimony, presented by the state, designed to bolster its position. Back to the binding effect of a trial courts judgement to deny acquittal. Would a trial court be bound by its own judgement to stay the course that the state proved it's murder case to his satisfaction, or would the state be bound to stay the course (collaterally estopped from additional claim) or does the judgement of a trial court have no binding effect at all unless it be to the peril of the accused? The rules are suppose to protect people from the government. Could we petition the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider, vacate or reverse its judgement and examine the trial for fundamental/structural errors that aren't subject to preclusion for failure to object? I think what I'm saying is that the trial courts judgement to deny acquittal effectively "set in stone" and removed any ambiguity as to the specific allegation to be defended and notice of allegation. And to supplement the charge AFTER both sides had rested not only offends the trial courts own ruling but also constructively denies counsel and denies notice. I understand that manslaughter is a lesser included offense, but the facts and evidence can not support BOTH shooting and not shooting simultaneously. The trial court ruled that murder by shooting was supported, so that's what we defended. We didn't defend anything else because according to the state's case in chief AND the trial courts ruling to deny motion of acquittal, there was nothing else to defend. Let alone defend individual acts that aren't crimes defined by statute and in absence of an allegation.

Commentary in 13a-1-1 says that it is to be easily understood by the LAYMAN as well as the legally trained.

If I'm wrong, please tell me what the hell I'm missing.

ThisHappenedinAlabama.com

                                I'm new to Reddit
                                     HELP/ ADVISE  NEEDED 

I've heard that Reddit is famous for coming up with genius answers to complicated problems. I sure hope some of you can prove that to me, it would be a blessing.

Short version: I was charged with murder. Accused of shooting another person to death. Had a trial, a trial in which the State's sole argument as to the manner of death was murder. The defense was that the gunshot was self inflicted. Forensics (Paul Kish/Chris Robinson) proved the the gunshot was self inflicted. The jury instructions provided for only one guilty option as to the defendant being the shooter, and that was for murder with no lesser included offense. However, at the State's request, an instruction for reckless manslaughter was given, for handing away the alleged murder weapon, although this was never accused to be a crime, was never argued before the jury, or defended, and entirely contradicts the indictment. The apparent logic being that since "reckless manslaughter" CAN be a lesser included offense of murder if there's a question of culpability but the defendant is still the shooter, then a potential crime of entirely different elements can be shoe horned in because that potential crime, if accused and prosecuted properly would bear the same name. I got 20 years. I'm in prison right now, sending this to you through my mother, who also started a website that has more details about this situation. ThisHappenedinAlabama.com

They let things like this happen, then don't understand how the prisons get overcrowded.

I know this can be fixed, I'm praying you can tell me how. Thank You

Jason Green 299182 28779 Nick Davis Rd. Harvest al 35749

I have never used Reddit before now. I hope I do this right advice welcomed. Thank you

Please read my son story. If you cannot help please send to any organizations that may be able to help. Pam Green 680 Alabama Street Killen, AL

My name is Jason Green. On January 29th, 2019 I was convicted of a crime I didn't commit. As a matter of fact, I was convicted for crime I wasn't even accused of or tried for. In 2011 I was arrested and later indicted for murder in the shooting death of my girlfriend/fiancé, Shay Ledlow. On one hand it is understandable that my telling police that the gunshot was self inflicted fell upon deaf ears. On the other hand, any death investigation should be thoroughly sifted for any and all pertinent details. My indictment was very clear: Count 1: MURDER The Grand Jury of Franklin County charges, before the finding of this indictment, Jason Dewayne Green, whose name is otherwise unknown to the Grand Jury than as stated, did intentionally cause the death of another person, to-wit Shay Nicole Ledlow, by shooting the said victim through the mouth, in violation of 13A-6-2 of the code of Alabama, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama. Scary stuff to read when you know you're innocent. Even scarier when you realize that you are NOT a part of the "good ole boy" network within your local government and the family of your "victim" owns a seat on the board, so to speak. (more on that later) In 2015, after the District Attorney had hired MY lawyer, Jeff Barksdale (the one I trusted and was prepared for trial) to be the new Assistant District Attorney, the other lawyer I had Billy Underwood (the crooked one) used the fear I spoke of to convince me that taking the States offer of a Blind Plea was the best option because there was just no way to defend a murder when there had been only two people present in the house, but if I took the plea I wouldn't go to prison. (I had him on tape saying this stuff.) So I took the plea, got 19 years 364 days. Filed a Rule 32, used the tape recording to prove I was seriously misled and the plea was vacated in September of 2017 after two and a half years in prison. 2017: Facing a new trial, with new lawyers, to numb to be scared, and determined to prove my innocence come hell or high water and in defiance of the "good ole boy network" we were facing,we got to work. Dissecting evey detail that could possibly be an issue in a murder trial is a lot of work to say the least, with specific emphasis on forensics. From day 1 I thought some CSI crew would show up with their sprays, special lights and other gizmos and prove that what I said was true, the police would give some form of an apology and offer condolences for my loss, etc... I was wrong. That's just TV, the "CSI effect" is a real thing, look it up. Like I said, we got to work. We knew the State had, among a stable of experts, doctors and specialists, a forensic expert from Florida who was preparing a video reenactment of what she and the State believed happened along with a supporting slideshow of how forensic investigations work. But we knew she was wrong. They were all wrong. But nobody is going to take my word for it, not over an entire cast and crew of doctors and experts led by the District Attorney all saying that I shot someone to death and that they could prove it. I found Paul Erwin Kish, but was warned that if there was ANYTHING that could be revealed against me that Mr. Kish WOULD find it, and it WOULD be included in a report to the District Attorney. I hired him. We also found firearms expert Chris Robinson who not only performed forensic tests of the firearm, but video taped his own procedure in the tests. With a very high level of clarity and insight these two men laid down the FACTS. Undisputable facts that allowed no room for presumptions, presupposed notions, or any other imaginative ideas. The District Attorney knew his case was in trouble. So what was his answer? I will tell you. Out of the presence of the jury, he asks the judge for jury instructions that include "reckless manslaughter", for handing away the gun I was accused of killing with, issuing a dare, and being intoxicated. The jury never hears those accusations! Those accusations aren't in my indictment. I didn't have opportunity to defend those accusations. I wasn't represented by counsel for those accusations. In a nearly three week trial, those accusations are never made, addressed or defended. To the jury, they will be heard for the first and only time from the judge, AFTER the evidentiary portion of the trial. Over our objections the judge gives those instructions in spite of a complete lack of fair legal contest. It's claimed later that my attorney objected " incorrectly". The jury did what my attorney warned they might. He termed it "splitting the baby". Apparently that's what happens a lot when a jury has three choices. On January 29th 2019 they found me not guilty of murder, BUT, guilty of something they never heard an argument for or against, reckless manslaughter. I can point to the page in my transcripts where even the District Attorney who asked for those instructions admits that there is no evidence of reckless behavior (page 2307). I received 20 years.

The appeals process so far has been brutal. "This was objected incorrectly " , "That wasn't preserved correctly" , "That should have been brought up before now" , "something else is precluded", etc... And it appears they don't always operate within their own rules. I'm not asking for special treatment, just fair and honest treatment. I have the documents and transcripts to back up everything I have said. And then some. What do you do when it appears that the court system, including the court of criminal appeals, breaks the rules regarding protecting the rights of the accused and is upheld by the State Supreme Court (without opinion)? I'm aware of how this sounds, ridiculous, right? Well, if an indictment states an accusation of "murder", with the averment of the means declaring "by shooting through the mouth" , how could one (the accused) be said to be sufficiently apprised of an accusation of handing the accused murder weapon away (to the victim) and using WORDS to commit a homicide (reckless manslaughter) by "causing a suicide" (although an accidental discharge could not be ruled out)? An entire murder trial transpired without the faintest hint that the defendant's defense was going to be considered a crime (until jury instructions), which denied the defendant the opportunity to "defend his defense", that had strong positions that could have been taken if faced with accusation, ( but how do you defend something you're not accused of). I don't understand how this can happen, neither does the attorney involved. I think I understand that manslaughter is a lesser included offense of a murder indictment, due to the dynamics of mens rea/culpability , but as to the actus reus/action, the phrase "There is but one act" , regarding the scope of an indictment, shows up repeatedly in case law and in the commentaries of 13A and the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Nowhere can it be found that an unrelated, incomparable set of facts (shooting a person vs. handing them a gun) that may or may not have been a crime, can substitute in as a lesser included offense just because it would bear the same name of an actual lesser included offense, IF it were to be deemed potentially criminal, IF it was accused in a manner prescribed by law, and IF it were to be put to a fair legal test. There were recorded remarks made by the defendant involving a "dare" to the victim. These remarks, made while in a state of shock, were, however, passionately refuted by the DA, even in his closing. The context and content of this "dare" was never examined or addressed, which would be imperative to understanding the WHOLE situation the night of the disaster AS IT WAS rather than the way one might presuppose, and that understanding would absolutely be prerequisite to presentation to a jury. Then again, it WASN'T presented to the jury by the State as part of any accusation, yet relied upon for a conviction of reckless manslaughter.

Also, the DA is on record stating that there is no evidence of reckless behavior. The trial judge steered his way around this (and intent)by indicating and giving voluntary intoxication instructions. However, no intoxication and or impairment on any level or to any degree was ever established or even argued before the jury and certainly wasn't substantiated (proved up) because the DA never made that accusation either. Even had it been, the logic fails that an intoxicated person is more legally responsible (for the actions of another) than an un-intoxicated person, IN ABSENCE OF RECKLESS BEHAVIOR, for the WORDS that he may or may not have actually spoken, in unknown context and/or content, that certainly were NOT shown to have had an influential impact on the actions of the other person, especially considering the actions of the other person are not known to have been intentional.

  For the sake of clarity, let me repeat:

*The jury never heard a claim by the State that the victim shot herself, under any circumstances. *The jury never heard a claim by the State that the defendant was was responsible for the actions of the victim. *The jury never heard a claim by the State that the defendant was intoxicated to the point of impairment. *The jury never heard a claim by the State that the victim was influenced by the words of the defendant. *The jury never heard a claim by the State that 'but for' taking the gun from the defendant, that the victim couldn't have otherwise been armed. (scene photos show, within reach, multiple firearms) *The jury never heard a claim by the State that 'but for' any action by the defendant, the action of the victim was a result. *The jury never heard a claim by the State that the defendant performed ANY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY that is contained in the conviction. *The only affirmative attempt on the part of the State in the prosecution of the crime (?) convicted, was in the asking for jury instructions that seemingly paralleled defendant's defense for the murder charge. Which was outside the presence of the jury. *The state failed to prove any material allegations of count 1 of the indictment

Being convicted and sentenced for this crime(?) without due process is equatable to a Bill of Attainder, ( banned in the U.S since 1789, art. 1 sec. 9 cl. 3 , and in State law, art. 1 sec. 10 , as well as expressly forbidden by every State constitution) that it: *Nullified the Civil Rights of the target *Circumvented Due Process reinforced by Fifth Amendment *Imposed punishment *Did so without the benefit of judicial trial *Did so without defendant having the benefit of defense counsel (for the crime(?) convicted) , Nor the opportunity to present a defense (for the crime (?) convicted)

An indictment for murder omitting means by which homicide was committed is fatally defective. Nelson v. State 50 ala app 285, 278 So2d 734 lexis 1273.

An averment of the means with which the offense charged was committed is a necessary averment to a good indictment and without it the indictment is defective and subject to demurrer. Gaines v. State 146 ala 16, 41 so 865 , 1906 ala lexis 141

A fatal variance between allegations in an indictment and proof of those allegations at trial exists when the state fails to adduce any proof of a material allegation of the indictment or where the only proof adduced is contrary to the material allegation in the indictment. Johnson v. state 584 so2d 881, 884 ala crim app 1991

Alabama law requires a material variance between the indictment and the proof adduced at trial before a conviction will be overturned. Ex parte Collins 385 so2d 1005 ala 1980 Brown v. state 588 so2d 551, 558 ala crim app 1991 Bigham v. state 23 so3d 1174, 1177 ala crim app 2009

Sent from my iPad