July - October 2008
1. An Additive Amendment [24] to original Habeas Petition [1] was filed with the court on July 7, 2008 along with eight Exhibits to support the issues raised and motions presented to the District Court. Three new grounds were raised with facts to support those grounds in addition to the three original grounds presented by Rodney Zell. Also, an Actual Innocence Miscarriage of Justice claim was presented to the court as an “Additional Issue to be Decided Through a Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law”.
2. In addition to the Additive Amendment, I also filed a Motion for Evidentiary Hearing [21], a Renewal of Motion for Appointment of Counsel [22] and a Motion for Limited Discovery [23].
3. The Motion for Limited Discovery centers around Safe Path documents that shows that the State experts and detectives involved in this case misled the jurors concerning the method used for conducting forensic interview on the children. The method of interviewing the children was one of the key material issues argued at trial to be decided by the trail jury,. Those documents contained both exculpatory and impeaching evidence vital to my defense and without its availability for the jury to consider them it highly prejudiced my defense and denied me of a constitutional fair trial.
4. The Motion for Evidentiary Hearing was presented so that the complete Safe Path documents, obtained through the granting of discovery, can be presented to the District Court for proper consideration. It would also be the first opportunity for a court to review the forensic interviews of the non-accusing children in the presence of the defense/petitioner and by an expert in the field so that an explanation to the court can be given of the impact of impeaching statements or the significance of exculpatory evidence by the non-accusing children.
5. The first request for an appointment of counsel [16] was denied by Magistrate Judge Johnson because at that time, his order [18] states, the need of an evidentiary hearing had not been established nor requested. So the renewal of Motion for Appointment of Counsel was filed in light of the motions for limited discovery and evidentiary hearing that now have been filed with the District Court. Federal courts can appoint counsel when an evidentiary hearing is warranted.
6. One of the exhibits that was included with the Additive Amendment was an Affidavit by Dr, Maggie Bruck, Exhibit E, that contained her expert opinion on certain issues concerning this case that have now been presented to the District Court. Dr. Bruck is a national and international foremost expert in the field of suggestibility of children and adults.
7. On October 7, 2008, Magistrate Judge Johnson issues an order [25] to Respondent to response within 30 days to my motions and to the additional claims that I raised in the Additive Amendment to the Habeas Petition “because petitioner has raised non-frivolous matters in his additional pleadings''.