Germany, (IIPPI) November 10, 2008 In 1995, Jesse Jerome Dean, Jr. was arrested in Miami, Florida on charges of being a member of the Luis Miguel Perez family-operated conspiracy to import illegal drugs into Florida.  

Dean refused a “plea-bargain” which proposed to dismiss all drug charges and to plead guilty to illegally using a telephone which carried a maximum of 48 months in prison.  

At trial in February of 1997, Dean testified that he was a paid, volunteer informant for the United States’ Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) who was doing his job of trying to infiltrate the Perez family drug organization, as he had previously done in other cases. 

Dean says he was amazed to learn for the first time that he had been “deactivated” in April of 1994 but not informed. It would have been mandated by DOJ Guidelines.  

Bahamas-based DEA Special Agent Shelton testified, “To my knowledge, he did not know that he had been deactivated.” Shelton had signed Dean’s deactivation.  

Dean was convicted because of Luis Miguel Perez’s testimony. Perez is a self-confessed, career drug-dealer and leader of the drug conspiracy. He was rewarded by the government with a 7-year reduction of his own 30-year sentence.  

Each witness at trial testified that Dean had absolutely nothing to do with the 908 kilograms of cocaine that were imported into Florida by the Perez organization.  

In 1998, the government was quoted by the court denying Dean’s direct appeal, “Although Dean had served as a drug enforcement agency informant in the Bahamas for a time, he had abandoned his functions when he elected to assist Miguel Perez in bringing cocaine into the United States.” 

In 2002, supressed information came to light. Dean had been previously cleared by a joint U.S./ Bahamian investigation. 

In spite of having shown to the trial judge newly discovered government documents which prove the known falsity of evidence used at trial, Dean remains imprisoned with a release date of 2021.  

Dean’s attorney is filing legal pleadings on November 12, 2008 before U.S. District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley in the Southern District of Florida. On the same Wednesday, there is an all-day-long-vigil in front of the Federal Court House in Palm Beach, Florida, beginning at 9:00 A.M. Local contact for questions: fl_cjr@yahoo.com and (954) 483-1972. 

For more information go to www.iippi.org/inmates/florida/jessedean.html .

Germany (IIPPI), August 20, 2008

Ronnie Lee Bowling, a Kentucky death row inmate, was convicted through the use of junk-science in Laurel County in 1992. The testimony of the FBI expert Havekost misled the jury regarding Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA). The prosecutor told the jurors about the CBLA evidence in his opening statement, “This is the string that ties all my evidence together.” 

Havekost testified in the evidence phase, “In my view they are the same, fall into the same composition group and therefore originate from the same manufacturer’s batch of bullet lead.” In the closing argument, the district attorney repeated, “But this case can come down to cold analytical facts … by an FBI agent … told you that he has never seen bullets out of the same batch used in unrelated crimes.”  

The FBI received much criticism over their CBLA methods and experts during the late 80s and early 90s. They commissioned the National Research Council (NRC) to study and give a report. It took about two years, and on February 10, 2004 they released a 113 page report titled, “Forensic Analysis: Weighing Bullet Lead Evidence”. The report sums up, “Finding: The available data do not support any statement that a crime bullet came from, or is likely to have come from a particular box of ammunition, and references to boxes of ammunition in any form are seriously misleading under Federal Rule of Evidence 403…”  

The FBI took this as a recommendation and conducted their own study of CBLA. They concluded and publically announced in a memo it would not longer use CBLA evidence. Now, it is not used anywhere in the USA.  On November 17, 2007, the FBI took it a step further in multiple press releases. They want the courts to identify cases, like Bowling’s, and grant a new trial for those where CBLA evidence and FBI expert testimony was used in court. Several cases have already been granted new trials over this junk-science. On March 23, 2006, the Kentucky Supreme Court concludes in Ragland v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 569, “that the admission of the CBLA test results and expert’s opinions about those require reversal for a new trial”. Other cases are: Clemons v. Maryland, 2006 WL 1007644, United States v. Mikos, 2003 WL 22922197, Commonwealth v. Lykus, 2005 WL 3804726. Bowling filed for a new trial at the Laurel Circuit Court, where he had been sentenced to death, raising this new evidence that shows the testimony is junk-science and no longer used in the USA. That court did not grant him a new trial. Bowling has appealed that decision, and currently has a fully-briefed appeal before the Kentucky Supreme Court. For details of this case go to http://www.iippi.org/inmates/kentucky/ronnieleebowling.html .

Contact Katja Pumm at info@iippi.org .

Germany (IIPPI), August 5, 2008

It is undisputed that Jessie James Cummings’ two wives shot and killed his sister, Judy Ann Moody Mayo, and his minor niece, Melissa Moody, in Coal County on September 5, 1991. Cummings was 100 miles away in Oklahoma City at that time.  Almost five years later, he was convicted of the initially unsolved crimes based on the uncorroborated and inconsistent testimonies of his co-defendants, Juanita and Sherry Cummings. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed Jessie Cummings’ conviction for the murder of his sister, but affirmed the conviction and sentence for the murder of his niece. 

The murder weapon has never been located in either murder. Cummings has not confessed. There is no evidence of a motive on his part. The trial showed the prisoner was on good terms with the victims. Unlike his co-defendants, Cummings refused to accept plea offers. He has consistently maintained his innocence of these offenses. W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, admits in a letter that the evidence in this case consists primarily of the sworn testimonies of the self-confessed murderers. Edmondson’s role is to represent the state in this matter. He utters, “I do so with confidence that the jury reached the correct decision.” 

Coal County was a sparsely populated county with a population of less than 6000 people in 1990. Some of the jurors knew Cummings personally. Most of them admitted that they had read about the case in the newspaper or heard about it on T.V.  In return for Juanita Cummings’ testimony, the prosecution agreed to drop the first degree murder charge against her and allow her to plead guilty to second degree murder with an agreement that no other charges would be filed against her with a recommended sentence to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. In return for Sherry Cummings’ testimony, the prosecution agreed to drop the first degree murder charge against her and allow her to plead guilty to two counts of accessory after the fact of murder and one count of abuse or permitting a child to be abused with a sentence totaling thirty-five (35) years imprisonment and an agreement that no other charges be filed against her.

For details of this case go to www.iippi.org/inmates/oklahoma/jessiejamescummings.html .

Hollenstedt (IIPPI), 7. Juli, 2008

Das Landgericht Dortmund verurteilte M. S. am 5. Februar 2007 zu vier Jahren und drei Monaten wegen vierfacher Vergewaltigung seiner Ex-Frau und Mutter seiner Kinder. Die Vergewaltigungen sollen in den Jahren 2002 und 2005 begangen worden sein.  Dies ist ein Fall, in dem Aussage gegen Aussage steht. Augenzeugen oder forensische Beweise, dass M. S. seine damalige Ehefrau vor der Trennung vergewaltigt hat, gibt es nicht. Der mehrfachen Vergewaltigung angeklagt wurde S. erst im Trennungsjahr, nachdem das Opfer von seiner neuen Freundin erfahren hatte. 

Das einzige Beweismittel des Staates ist die Aussage des Tatopfers. Sie beruft sich auf Kalenderblätter, in denen sie die Vergewaltigungen mit einem Kreuz markiert habe. Diese jedoch konnte sie dem Gericht nicht vorlegen.  S. kann die gegen ihn erhobenen Anschuldigungen mit SMS-Nachrichten von seiner ehemaligen Gattin, Reisepässen, Videoaufnahmen, Fotos, Kalenderblättern und Zeugenaussagen widerlegen. 

Am 28. Januar 2008 lehnte das Landgericht Essen ein Wiederaufnahmeverfahren ab. Am 5. Februar legte S.s Verteidiger eine sofortige Beschwerde ein.  Das Oberlandesgericht Hamm beschloss am 27. März 2008 nach Anhörung der Generalstaatsanwaltschaft: „Auf die sofortigen Beschwerden des Verurteilten wird der Beschluss des Landgerichts Essen vom 28. Januar 2008 insoweit aufgehoben, als das Landgericht den Wiederaufnahmeantrag des Verurteilten bezüglich der Tat vom 27. Juli 2002 als unzulässig verworfen hat. Der Wiederaufnahmeantrag des Verurteilten wird wegen dieser Tat für zulässig erklärt. Im Übrigen werden die sofortigen Beschwerden als unbegründet verworfen.”  

Die Vergewaltigung vom 27. Juli 2002 wird am 11. Juli 2008, um 9:30 Uhr im Landgericht Essen neu verhandelt.  Detailierte Informationen hinsichtlich des Falls S. sind im Internet unter www.iippi.org/inmates/germany/michaelsmandzik.html erhältlich. 

On September 5, 1991, Jessie Cummings’ two wives shot and killed his sister, Judy Ann Moody Mayo, and his minor niece, Melissa Moody, in Coal County. Cummings was 100 miles away in Oklahoma City at that time. Almost five years later, he was convicted of the initially unsolved crimes based on the uncorroborated and inconsistent testimonies of his co-defendants, Juanita and Sherry Cummings.  

On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed his conviction for the murder of his sister, but affirmed the conviction and sentence for the murder of his niece. An evidentiary hearing was ordered and was held in 2001. Following the hearing, the magistrate issued findings of fact and conclusion of law favorable to the prosecution.  The murder weapon has never been located in either murder. Cummings has not confessed. There is no evidence of a motive on his part. The trial showed the prisoner was on good terms with the victims. Unlike his co-defendants, Cummings refused to accept plea offers. He has consistently maintained his innocence of these offenses and asks for DNA testing and a thorough investigation in the case. 

W. A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, writes in a letter, “There can be no DNA testing because there is simply nothing to test. The evidence in this case, consisting primarily of the sworn testimony of two witnesses/ accomplices, was submitted to a jury, which found it sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt.” Coal County was a sparsely populated county with a population of less than 6000 people in 1990. Some of the jurors knew Cummings personally. Most of them admitted that they had read about the case in the newspaper or heard about it on T.V. 

Robert T. Matsui, Member of Congress, replies to a letter from one of Cummings’ supporters, “Since the reinstatement of the death penalty twenty-five years ago, one out of every one hundred of those sentenced to death in the United States has been exonerated after spending years on death row for crimes they did not commit. One innocent death is too many. For this reason, I am a cosponsor of the Innocence Protection Act of 2001.” The Congressman adds, “Garnering the support of more than one half of the United States House of Representatives, this bill reflects the growing sentiment that the present death penalty system is in dire need of reform.”   Daniel J. Bryant, Acting Assistant Attorney General of Washington, D.C. was referred a letter to the President concerning the death row inmate. He asserts, “With respect to DNA testing, the Administration and the U.S. Department of Justice support the utilization of the DNA testing technology both for the reliable identification and conviction of the guilty and for the protection of the innocent.” He concludes, “However, the states determine the specific conditions under which postconviction DNA testing will be provided in state cases.” 

The Office of the Governor of Oklahoma informs Cummings, “Allegations of wrongdoing of local officials, including city or county officials, or information about wrongful convictions should be brought to the attention of the appropriate District Attorney.” It implies, “If it is the conduct of the District Attorney that is questioned, you should bring this matter directly to the attention of the Attorney General.” The role of the Attorney General’s office is to represent the state in this matter. Edmondson utters, “I do so with confidence that the jury reached the correct decision.” 

The office of the Lieutenant Governor of Oklahoma replies to Cummings, “The separation of governmental powers prevents the Lt. Governor from overruling or interfering with the decision of an appointed judge.” It refers to the Oklahoma Bar Association that “can be contacted in the case of unethical behavior.”  “The Office of the General Counsel investigates grievances alleging attorney misconduct which violates the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. Although the bahavior of an attorney may seem inappropriate, it does not necessarily constitute a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct” indicates the Oklahoma Bar Association. In a second letter, the Council on Judicial Complaints notifies Cummings, “After thorough review and consideration, the Council has dismissed the complaint.” 

Cummings’ trial counsel was terminated from the Oklahoma indigent defense system in 1997 for failing to respond to clients needs. His co-trial counsel was found to be neglectful of his client’s business in the same year. In return for Juanita Cummings’ testimony, the prosecution agreed to drop the first degree murder charge against her and allow her to plead guilty to second degree murder with an agreement that no other charges would be filed against her with a recommended sentence to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. 

In return for Sherry Cummings’ testimony, the prosecution agreed to drop the first degree murder charge against her and allow her to plead guilty to two counts of accessory after the fact of murder and one count of abuse or permitting a child to be abused with a sentence totaling thirty-five (35) years imprisonment and an agreement that no other charges be filed against her.  The United States Supreme Court has denied Jessie Cummings’ request for certiorari. The state has asked that an execution date be set.  

For details of this case go to www.iippi.org/inmates/oklahoma/jessiejamescummings.html . Contact Katja Pumm at info@iippi.org .