On February 13, 1997 the police saw Mr. X driving his truck at the corner of Flower Street in a small town here in California.  They were headed to his home to execute a search warrant, so they stopped him and had him taken out of his truck, then handcuffed and put in the back of a patrol car.  One of the officers drove Mr. X’s truck about a ½ mile back to his home where about 8 other officers already were.  Once there and after they gained entry to his home Mr. X was brought in and placed still handcuffed and not free to leave at his dining room table.

Now remember there are eight to ten officers at this point in the home, once the search began, for the first 15 – 20 minutes of being in his home Mr. X sat at his dining room table guarded by three officers and questioned about narcotics and guns. While these questions were being asked to Mr. X his Miranda Rights were never read to him yet.  Mr. X during the questioning made the statement that there was an old .22 handgun (which could be loaded) in his roommate’s bedroom, which the roommate kept for protection.  They preceded to (the officers) the roommate’s bedroom and found the gun where Mr. X stated it would be. They also found two different types of bullets that did not belong to the gun and a clip that was broken; this gun was also never loaded.

They also found documents in the kitchen that belong to Mr. X saying that he lived in the home, which he never denied. Upon finding the gun, one officer took it to the lead officer who was at the dining room table also with Mr. X.  Once the search was completed and no narcotics were found, they then placed Mr. X under arrest for being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm, only then did they read him his Miranda Rights and took him to jail. It should also be noted that Mr. X was not on parole or probation and had been arrest free for seven years.

Now during the pretrial, Mr. X’s lawyer (who he paid $12,500 to represent him) never called any witnesses, which there where ten officers at the seen. During the trial the prosecution only called two of the officers to the stand. The jury never knew that there was a search warrant issued for narcotics. They suppressed that issue. No narcotics where found in the house. The officers during the search never took notes or taped any conversations that they had during the search. They did not even do a trace to see who the gun belonged to at the time they detained Mr. X.

During the trial, Mr. X’s roommate was questioned about the gun. She told the jury that the gun belonged to her ex-husband and when her mother lived with her she used the gun as protection even though the gun never worked.  Two years prior her mother died, and she just kept the gun under the mattress. She could not go into the room because her mother died in that room.

The prosecution belittled the witness asking her over and over was Mr.X and her ever lovers? For the fact that Mr. X’s roommate would take his mother of 64 (which lived next door to her) to see Mr. X at the jail every weekend. The prosecutions contend that the roommate put on the visiting form that she was his girlfriend.  When asked why she told them that she said it was so she could be let in to visit him with his mother. She told the jury over and over again that they where just friends, that he would do landscaping jobs for all the persons on the block and she gave him a place to live until he earn enough to get his own place. She also told the jury that she was 50 something years old and that she was old enough to be Mr. X’s mother, because he was in his 30’s at the time. But the prosecution came back with “Haven’t you ever watched Jerry Springer”? It happens all the time. Which at this point the prosecution was out of line. I guess the prosecution is a Jerry Springer Fan!

Mr. X’s lawyer asked the officers were there any men's clothing or personal effects in the room where the gun was found? The officers claimed that they did not remember. In the evidence presented to the jury, there was nine photos of the room and the house? Again no notes where taken. During ¾’s into the trial the prosecution had the gun traced him/her self, again the gun came up with no owner. So the prosecution had to have something else to go on, and guess what it was? A painting. It seems that there was a painting of Mr. X in the room where the gun was, so because there was a painting in the room, the gun had to belong to Mr. X? So does this mean that all of the underwear, dresses and other personal women’s items were Mr. X’s too?

There were many things behind closed doors that Mr. X’s Lawyer and the prosecution kept from the jury. They based the trial on a painting, Mr. X’s priors (which some should had been taking off) but the Judge in this case refused to strike off any off the prior. The Jury found Mr. X guilty of procession of a fire arm. He has done seven years; in this case he received a third strike because of his priors. He has no chance of parole until he does 25 years to life, because of what? A painting, a gun that no one seemed to prove that it was his in the first place?

During the last part of the sentencing phase of the trial, Mr. X’s mother testify that her son had done done a few things wrong in the past, but he had changed his life around for the better, he was going to church, he had a good job and he was committed to his work. She was afraid that because of her health and age that she would never see her son again.  Many other people came forward for Mr. X; even his boss said that; “if he ever gets out that he would have his same job that he had waiting for him.” The prosecution asked his boss “did he know about Mr. X’s prior past, and he said that he heard about it but he believed that a man’s past is his past. Everyone deserves a second chance in life. He never had any problems with Mr. X and he was like by many at the job. He even made him Foreman. The judge still gave him 25 years to life.

He has filed appeal after appeal but all have been denied. I ask what is wrong with this case. Can you the people tell me? I see four amendments violated here. Can you tell me what they are? Or is our justice system going to the dogs. We must stop putting people away for crimes that do not make sense. We are stuffing people in prisons like sardines in a can. Then we wonder why California has budget crises on their hands. It is cases like this that we the tax payers are paying for.

We are suppose to be protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so what is going on with our system? Our four fathers would turn in their grave if they would read some of these stories.

This is not the way the system is supposed to be. I am hoping that there will be a lawyer or someone who will read this story and help Mr. X. Like other stories I have written, we have got to get a hold on to what we are doing. If we don’t, then our justice system will continue to take turn the worst and not for the better.

Foot Note: January 26th 2004

The Supreme Court Reaffirms Miranda Ruling

Washington - The Supreme Court reaffirmed Monday that police must tell indicted people of their rights before starting interrogations.

The ruling in Fellers vs United States is viewable at:

http://datacenter.ap.org/wdc/scotus/040126fellers.pdf

In light of this ruling the family of Mr. X is looking for a lawyer who is willing to appeal Mr. X's case for him here in the State of California. You may contact me the author of this story. And I will pass the information on how to get in touch with Mr. X's Family. It is time for true justice to take a stand in this case also.