Overview of the case including prosecutor misconduct, ineffective counsel, jurors questions and appeal arguments

This case involves:

A Richardson Violation Nondisclosure of the fact that a witness changes testimony constitutes a discovery violation requiring a Richardson hearing, the Florida Supreme Court said. The victim changed her testimony from not being able to identify the suspect to identifying the suspect almost 3 years later at 100%. Yet the suspect was wearing a mask and she originally said that she could only see his eyes. Then she said that the nose looked familiar.

                        I was emailed the 911 call from the victim. The victim said that she would only be able to identify the suspect if he looked the way he looked when he attempted to rob her. In other words, he had to have the bandana covering half his face and hoodie, covering his head. On her 911 call, she said the assailant was 5’7.

One time, she said she could see the hairline. Another time, she said that she could not see the hairline.

Once she said that she was not familiar with guns. During the same deposition, she contradicted herself and said that she was familiar with guns and has also shot them.

A Brady ViolationEvidence that is favorable to the defendant (exculpatory) and could impact the outcome of the defendant’s case (material) is often called “Brady material” because of the seminal 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland, summarized below. In that case, the Supreme Court established a rule that prosecutors must disclose “Brady material” to the defense. The failure to disclose such material is a “Brady violation,” a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The prosecutor had knowledge that the detective said that my son’s cell phone was not being used in the area of the robberies. This evidence was withheld.

                        Another Brady Violation is that a crime line was given to the prosecutor showing another crime taking place on the same day at approximately the same time. The caller said that the suspect wore dreadlocks. The caller even gave the name of the suspect. This information was withheld from the defense. I was mistakenly emailed the crime line from the 1st rogue attorney.

I was also emailed the 911 call from the victim. The victim said that she would only be able to identify the suspect if he looked the way he looked when he attempted to rob her. In other words, he had to have the bandana covering half his face and hoodie, covering his head. On her 911 call, she said the assailant was 5’7. Later she said, he was 5’11.

Police Manipulation– One detective was handling all of the cases. She was the detective for the 2 guys that robbed by son at gun point. She was the detective for the lady victim. She was the detective for the male victim. She was the detective for my son as victim and suspect. She did all interviews. She also signed off for the accuracy on the so-called confession of my son. She manipulated my son into confessing the same way she manipulated one of the victims into identifying my son. The other victim could not be manipulated. Even in his so-called confession, he got the facts wrong. He said it was 2 girls in the car when in reality it was a girl and her dog. My son also says that there are parts missing from the video. How does one detective handle all of the cases?

The detective left out pertinent information on her arrest affidavit like the victim could not identify the suspect.

On the original police report, the officer at the scene said the following.  Please note that the following is a direct quote from the officer at the scene. “The victim described the unknown suspect as an average built black male, approximately 5’11”, wearing a dark colored hooded sweatshirt and blue jeans and a blue and white bandana covering his face leaving only his eyes exposed. Ms. Slater stated she would not be able to identify the suspect if she was to see him again”.

The detective lied on her deposition when she said that she did not receive my son’s phone records. In fact the incident report says the following.” June 14th, 2011 – I received the results from the Order to Produce for Charles’ phone. I looked at the dates the robberies occurred to see if he was in the area. It appears his cell phone was not used near the time of the robberies. The detective did not want this information known. The prosecutor knew of this.

Two photo lineups were done, one month apart. In the first lineup, both victims said that they were unable to identify the suspect. In the 2nd lineup, one victim said he still could not identify the suspect. The suspect was wearing a mask. The female victim was manipulated by the detective into saying the nose looked familiar. Also, the first photo lineup was done in the victim’s home. She says it in her deposition. I am unsure where the second photo lineup was done.

Prosecutor Vindictiveness– The 1st attorney actually arranged for me to speak with the prosecutor on the phone. I was new at this. I did not know that this was not proper protocol. I thought the prosecutor wanted to tell me something good. Instead, she wanted me to talk my son into taking 13 years. I politely told her that I would not do that. She became irate and told me that he could get 65 years. She said the guys that robbed him were going to testify against him. I told her that I would not expect anything less as my son had these guys arrest for armed robbery. I learned that she was lying because I got the interview between the guys and the detective and they said nothing of the sort.

After I complained to our attorney about the prosecutor calling me, she removed herself from the case. I now realize that he went to her instead of going to the judge.

The jurors wanted to see the video tape again. The instruction was that they would have to see the tape in the presence of the court. The attorney did not object when the judge suggested that they can take it to the jury room. Even the prosecutor looked like he wanted to object. Our attorney did not object. He supported the idea.

At trial, our defense attorney did not question the police office who was at  scene of the attempted robberies. Had he cross-examined him, maybe the jurors would have found out that this same officer said that the victim said that she would be unable to identify the suspect. He wrote it himself and it is in his original police report. 

Our defense attorney advised my son to take the stand. My son did not want to take the stand. The attorney insisted.

Upon questioning,  our attorney did not ask my son about his accomplishments. He didn’t ask questions so that my son could say that he was 3 classes from a bachelor’s degree. He did not ask my son what he was doing during the time of the attempted robbery He did not bring into evidence the fact that my son, a month earlier had just received a living stipend check for over $7000. Our attorney did absolutely nothing. So why did he want my son to testify. I guess so that the prosecutor could trip him up.

Of course the prosecutor stepped over boundaries without objection from our attorney.

Ironically, at the end of it all, the jurors did not come back with the speedy guilty everyone was looking for. Instead they deliberated several hours and came out back with questions. Questions that even surprised the prosecutor. Questions that went unanswered. Those questions forthcoming later in this post.

Prosecutor misconduct during closing argument includes:

Burden Shifting

Appeal to Jury’s Emotions

Bolstering the Victim

Accusations of Lying

Comment on Demeanor

Denigrating the Defense

Admitting into the evidence the unduly prejudicial portions of the videotape of Mr. Ajoloko interrogation: in the alternative, trial counsel committed fundamental error by not objecting to its improper introduction

“And so before you–I can see it in your eyes that you’re already starting to think about how you’re going to lie your way out of this. Okay? She already explained to you nobody got hurt. Nothing got taken. But the fact of the matter is, before you start to lie, you need to understand that we know a lot more than you think we do. So you need to be 100 percent honest with us so we know what we’re dealing with because we don’t want this other stuff.”

During closing in reference to this portion of the video tape, the prosecutor stated the following:

“You watched him as he was testifying. When I asked him that question, keep in mind what the officer said on the video. The officer said to him on the video, I can see it in your eyes, you know, you’re trying to figure out some lie. You’re lying — I don’t want to misquote anything. I promise I’m almost done. He said(referring to the police officer statement), I can see it in your eyes that you are — I can see it in your eyes that you already are starting to think about how you’re going to lie your way out of this.”

The prosecutor later stated,” Now, he’s thinking in his mind probably, should I exaggerate a little bit and say she hugged me and caressed my leg, this and that? This is one of the few times that our attorney made a timely objection.

Other prosecution misconduct during closing includes the following statements by the prosecutor without defense objection:

Today he is sitting here, like he’s in the church looking at the table, trying to get you to believe this mental health defense that they’re presenting

I would submit to you, use your common sense. He’s caught. He knows he’s caught. And now he’s trying to spin his way out of this. Don’t lose sight of the forest for the trees. Hopefully, I said that right again.

I am confident you will do that and that you will come back with the only lawful and reasonable and just verdict in this case, justice for (victim), and that is guilty as charged as to all counts, and with the finding that he possessed a firearm on the counts.

During deliberations, the jurors had several questions.

The first question:

THE COURT: We have a question, or multiple

questions. Let’s take then one at a time. I would have

a seat if I were you. Are there phone records showing calls between

detective and defendant? How many and how long?

State, how would you suggest I respond to that?

MR. Prosecutor: The standard instruction, you have been

provided all the evidence in the case that — actually,

if you want if say no, I don’t have a problem saying no.

THE COURT: Defense, what do you —

Our Attorney: : I would ask for some response along

the lines of, you are in possession of all the evidence

in this case. There is no other evidence to be

considered for deliberations.

MR. Prosecutor:  That’s fine.

When I returned home from the trial, I had AT&T send me my phone records.

The phone records show that my son and the detective was on the phone 14 times. 14 times.

THE COURT: Date the video was made.

MR. Prosecutor:  I’m sorry?

MR. Prosecutor:  I think it came out in evidence.

Our Attorney: I think — I mean, candidly, Judge,

I think that I would prefer to respond, you’re to rely

on your recollection. I don’t think — they can have a

read back, maybe. I don’t —

THE COURT: Well, would it say it on the video?

MR. Prosecutor: No, it does not. (My question is- why isn’t the date on the video???)

THE COURT: How do you want me to handle this, Attorney?

MR. Prosecutor:  Read back would —

Our Attorney:  Yeah. What do you think? Just

agree — we can tell them — I can call him right now.

THE COURT: I’m sorry?

Our Attorney:  It did come into evidence, Judge.

So we may as well tell them rather than — we can tell

then. I’m fine with that.

THE COURT: Do you agree on when it was made?

Our Attorney:  There’s going to be an agreement,

Judge. (Why is so confident that there is going to be an agreement?).

THE COURT: Okay.

Our Attorney:  The video was when?

MR. Prosecutor:  June 7th.

THE COURT: June 7th?

Our Attorney:  June 17th.

THE COURT: June 17, 2011. And it’s agreed that I

tell them that?

MR. Prosecutor:  Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: June 17, 2011.

I am assuming that the reason the jurors asked this question is because of the discrepancy in dates. The video transcript has the date as 7/12/2014, yet the date the video took place was on 6/17/2014.

Also it was the same detective that signed off on the accuracy of the transcript. In other words, she did the interrogation of my son and then signed off on the accuracy.

They want to watch the video again, so if we can

get that set up.

All right. You ready for the next paragraph? Are

a lot of guns black?

Our Attorney: Are what?

THE COURT: Are a lot of guns black? Is a Glock an

unusual kind of gun? Do different Glocks look different

from each other? Are Glocks easily accessible? (The jurors had a Xerox copy of two guns. These could have been any 2 guns. Guns of the same make, model and color are indistinguishable.The police never had the gun in their possession.)

MR. Prosecutor: Same instruction Our Attorney attested,

to rely on evidence received. No other evidence to be

relied on.

THE COURT: asking Our Attorney, do you agree?

Our Attorney:  I think that’s pretty much the

standard way to answer the questions. That’s fine.

THE COURT: Ready for the final one? Is it a

coincident that both cases ended up in the lap of

Detective xxxxx?

Our Attorney: I think the same answer. I guess

it’s the same answer, right? No?

MR. Prosecutor: Did they actually ask that question? I

would — I don’t know if Our Attorney– see, I don’t

want to —

Our Attorney:  Judge, let’s rely on the same answer

with that one, too.

Our attorney really said this. He did not ask for a mistrial. He could care less. The jurors knew something was wrong. How did one detective have their fingers in the same cases. They would have been surprised  to learn that she was also the sole detective on the severed case, as well as the detective for the 2 guys that robbed my son. She was a busy detective.

THE COURT: Okay. As soon as we can get that set

up with that video and they will come back out, I will

give them the answers and then —

Our Attorney:  Ms. XXXXX  little dog has been

alone all day. Is it all right if she leaves?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. Prosecutor:  Your Honor, the only thing, because

they’re watching the video, I would ask the Court to

read the same instruction as read before about this is a

stipulated — I forget exactly how it’s phrased. The

Supreme Court — this is — you are not to consider

anything else.

Our Attorney:  That’s fine.

THE COURT: You will need to send it to me again.

MR. Prosecutor: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And hold on to it for future use.

And do you have it ready for them?

MR. Prosecutor: Yes, Your Honor. All they have to do

is press play and —

THE COURT: Why are we watching that with them?

Can’t they watch that back there? Is there other stuff

on it?

MR. Prosecutor: My understanding was that they’re not

allowed to watch —

THE COURT: No. Usually we — usually have a

laptop which has other stuff on the laptop, so we never

want to send it back to them.

Do you have any objection with them watching it,

State?

Our Attorney:  I would actually prefer it, Judge,

because they are entitled to feel more free to, Judge —

(The judges’ initial instructions to the jurors were that if they wanted to view the video, it would have to be in the courtroom in the presence of the attorneys. Then it was her idea that they take it to the jury room. 

If I were a juror, I would wonder why the judge changed her own instruction. I would read a meaning into it as though she wanted us to look at it in more detail. It wasn’t as if it was the states’ or our attorney’s idea. I really feel that since there were so many questions posed by the jurors; the fact that she wanted them to view the video in private unfairly tipped the scale in the states favor). 

THE COURT: Okay. I’m going to tell them they can

push play. And I’ll call them out and give them all the

other answers and send them back and they can watch it

as much as they would like. (and the more they watch, the more that they can convince themselves of my son’s guilt)

And whenever the deputies are ready, you can bring

them out.

COURT DEPUTY: Jury entering.

(The jury enters the courtroom.)

THE COURT: And you may be seated.

I received a number of questions. Can we move the

TV? Remember, it’s still plugged in, also.

I received a number of questions. I’m going to go

through the questions and read them out loud. And then

I’ll give you what is the response to that particular

question. If the question is different than you meant

it to be, let me know and I will — I will give you an

opportunity to re-ask the question.

The first is, are there phone records showing calls

between the detective and the defendant? How many and

how long?

I want to tell you that there’s no other evidence

in this case. You have been presented all the evidence

you are to consider, and you are only to consider the

evidence, lack of evidence, and the instructions on the

law in this case.

The video — the date the video was made is

June 17th, 2011.

The question, we want to watch the video again. We

are going to provide it to you. You are going to have

it back in the jury room with you. Just push play and

you can watch it. I think all the controls work as you

would expect.

The next paragraph. Are a lot of guns black? Is a

Glock an unusual kind of gun? Do Glocks look different

from each other? Do Glocks look very different from

other guns? Are Glocks easily accessible?

Again, that’s the same answer as question one.

You’ve received all the evidence. You are only to

consider the evidence that I have given to you. I can’t

answer questions that are outside of the evidence in

this case, which is also the answer to, is it a

coincidence that both cases ended up in the lap of

Detective XXXXXXXs.

And with that, you can follow the deputies back.

COURT DEPUTY: Jury exiting.

(The jury exits the courtroom.)

THE COURT: We will be in recess.

(Court was in recess.)

THE COURT: They can bring them out.

COURT DEPUTY: Jury entering.

(The jury enters the courtroom.)

THE COURT: You may be seated.

It’s my understanding you have reached a verdict?

THE FOREPERSON: Yes, we have.

THE COURT: Will you give it to the court deputy,

please?

THE CLERK: In the Circuit Court of the Ninth

Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida, Case

Number 2011-CF-xxxx State of Florida versus Charles

xxxxxx.

Verdict as to Count 1: We, the jury, find the

defendant, Charles xxxxxx, guilty of the crime of

attempted robbery with a firearm.

We further find the defendant, Charles xxxxxx,

actually possessed a firearm during the commission of

the offense.

Verdict as to Count 2: We, the jury, find the

defendant, xxxxx Ajoloko, guilty of the crime of

aggravated assault with a firearm.

And we further find that the defendant, Charles

xxxxxxx, during the commission of said offense, actually

possessed said firearm. So say we all, dated at

Orlando, Orange County, Florida, on this 20th day of

November 20, 2013. Both forms have been signed by the

foreperson.

(The proceedings were concluded.)

CONCLUDED-And so was my son’s life, my life and my family’s life CONCLUDED

 

 

 

 



One thought on “Overview of the case including prosecutor misconduct, ineffective counsel, jurors questions and appeal arguments

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s