Prosecutorial Misconduct

In a new series of articles Magna Carta News will examine prosecutorial misconduct and will bring out some amazing information. Today's article will look at prosecutorial misconduct in 308 cases in Oklahoma alone.

We will be archiving each of these cases and we will be able to provide proof of each of these cases. We will name names and document the cases and we will continue this series unitil we have covered every state in the union. We will be able to document each and every case by case number

Our purpose here will be to focus the attention of our reading public on the real scope of the problem of prosecutorial misconduct. nationwide and to provide documentation and evidence for those researchers who are striving to bring better justice to all.

The study of criminal appeals from 1970 to the present revealed 308 Oklahoma cases in which the defendant alleged prosecutorial misconduct. In 30 cases, judges ruled a prosecutor’s conduct prejudiced the defendant and reversed or remanded the defendant's conviction, sentence or indictment. In 13, a dissenting judge or judges thought the prosecutor's conduct prejudiced the defendant. Out of all the defendants who alleged misconduct, one later proved his innocence.

Out of the 30 cases in which courts determined the prosecutor's conduct prejudiced the defendant, 26 involved improper trial arguments, questioning of witnesses or other improper trial tactics. Four involved the prosecution withholding evidence from the defense.

Former Oklahoma County District Attorney Robert Macy tried at least seven of the cases in which defendants alleged a prosecutor denied them a fair trial. In five, judges ruled his conduct did not prejudice the defendant. In one, the court ruled his conduct prejudiced the defendant and reversed the conviction. In two, a dissenting judge or judges would have reversed the conviction due to his conduct.

In November 1988, the state appeals court reversed Curtis McCarty's first-degree murder conviction due to the improper trial behavior of Macy and his assistant Barry Albert. During closing argument, Macy commented on facts not in evidence, attacked the credibility of defense counsel and expressed his personal opinion. The case involved Joyce Gilchrist, a police forensic chemist who, it was later discovered, apparently falsified evidence in criminal cases.

In the beginning of his closing argument, Macy said to the jury, "I wonder if [McCarty] was grinning and laughing that night when he murdered [the victim]."�

In addressing Macy's trial arguments, the court referred to a 1986 Tenth Circuit Appeals Court ruling that reversed a defendant's first-degree murder convictions because Macy withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense and jury.

"Mr. Macy's comment was, in the words of Tenth Circuit Judge Seymour, criticizing Mr. Macy for similar tactics, " at best speculation and at worst fantasy,"� wrote Justice J. T. Parks. "The evidence against [McCarty] cannot fairly be termed overwhelming, and we cannot conclude that the multitude of errors was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."�

In an appeal decided during March 1985, defendant Robert Cantrell alleged Macy's improper trial arguments deprived him of a fair trial. A jury convicted him of attempted perjury and he was sentenced to two and one half years in prison. The court's majority held Macy's comments did not prejudice Cantrell.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Parks ruled that Macy's comments "repeatedly breached the boundaries of the issues in this case."� Parks was particularly concerned with Macy's comments regarding politicians and lawyers.

"It appears the prosecutor had a low opinion of both politicians and lawyers,"� Parks wrote. "The prosecutor is both a lawyer and an elected official, ergo, a politician; therefore, his opinion appears formed from first-hand knowledge."�

Oklahoma Prosecutorial Misconduct

Photos of Oklahoma Corrupt Rulings Judges

The three judges named and pictured below, wrongfully accepted reassignment to preside over the prior legal actions while knowing of their conflict of interests stemming from their economic, blood ties and personal interests with the high profile parties involved therein. As the direct result of their conflict of interests, these state and federal judges failed to uphold their sworn duty to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution and closed their eyes to our counsel's and the bank's insider, lawyer's fraud, conspiracy obstruction of lawful administration of justice.
Thus, the truth of our legal defense and claims, were never adjudicated in judge Blevins' court, or in the legal actions that followed. This was the direct result of our counsel and the bank's "Intrinsic fraud," and are not enforceable even by a holder in due course, U.S.C. Section 305(2)(c).

Judge James B. Blevins,

accepted reassignment to preside over the lawsuit in foreclosure by the First National Bank of Bethany, Oklahoma, (bank) case No.
CJ-85-0095. Judge Blevins failed to find the truth outlined in the
Photos of Lawyers, And Their Corrupt Legal Actions page herein, showing the bank’s allegations that we had defaulted on its note and mortgage were patently untrue. The judge acted in concert in our counsel's obvious deceptive legal actions arising in their conflicts of interests with parties involved in our case.

Judge Blevins failed to assert Oklahoma state statute to remand the case to be heard in a trial by jury on the merits. Allowed our first attorney, Alan Reaves, to file a one page shammed answer on our behalf, permitted Reaves to secretly dismiss our counterclaim (in violation of Oklahoma statute), seeking in excess of $2,000,000.00 in damages, which he had filed just the day before. He then granted bank's motion for summary judgement on a false sworn foreclosure, and against our counterclaim. We filed an appeal and American Inn's CH-11 bankruptcy petition. All the while, all the lawyers, the bank, and our counsel, were refusing to close the remortgage commitment issued by the second lender, Tinker Investment and Mortgage Corp., at a $19,500 consideration.

Judge Blevins failed to bring out the true facts in which Durbin, our second lawyer, recommended by the US Attorney, had deceived us from the start as outlined in the photos of lawyers page

Our third attorney, Charles Rouse, filed our four-count lawsuit charging fraud, bank's fraud, etc, and obtained a temporary restraining order, and a hearing was set for June 7, 1985.
At the TRO hearing, on one count only, Judge Blevins permitted Pierce and co-counsel Joel Carson, to enter into evidence statements (supporting their fraudulent defense) as to what the witnesses seated in the court room would say if called to testify under oath. stopped me from stating certain truths known to us at that time. subjected me to yes or no answers to trick- questions meant to uphold the bank's fraudulent defense, knowing that Durbin was still our counsel of record, the judge stated that Durbin needn't swear his oath, and stated that, "you are an officer of the court", then allowed Durbin to cover-up/suppress evidence vital to our lawsuit and court stay of the bank's Sheriffs Sale of our American Inn Judge Blevins corruptly stated the hearing was a trial on the merits, and granted the bank summary judgment dismissing all four counts of our lawsuit and ended the Temporary Restraining Order. The transcript of that hearing is in our possession.



Judge Richard Bohanon

We sought protection from the bank's corrupt legal actions and Sheriff's
sale of our American Inn under CH-11, U. S. Bankruptcy Code. The case was
initially assigned to judge Berry. Judge Bohanon then took re-assignment
of the case in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning
conflicts of interest, arising in the fact that he took his seat on the federal bench
from the main
co-conspirator's law firm and was receiving payments for stock sold back to
that law firm, while his father, Luther Bohanon, was a Senior Judge in that
U.S. District Court in violation of 458 F.R.C.P. Judge Richard Bohanon
was informed of the above facts and stated in his finding of fact and
conclusion of law, "this is more like a war than a bankruptcy". He then
acted in concert with the bankers and lawyers whose fraud drove our
American Inn into bankruptcy court in the first place by appointing Durbin and Pierce to
positions in full control of the bankruptcy proceeding.

Knowing that Durbin and Pierce were to be named as defendants in the
trustee's adversary action, Bohanon named Durbin (a potential
defendant for his state court fraud against us and whose fee was contested)
to be Chairman of the Unsecured Creditor Committee of the case. The judge appointed as Trustee,
lawyer Michael Rolinaitis and his
wife, both of whom had defaulted loans at the bank whose fraud caused
the bankruptcy. Michael Rolinaitis who also had an attorney-client duty to our
American Inn, was appointed Trustee and Mrs. Rolinaitis was appoined
accountant. Judge Bohanan, also appointed Peter Pierce, (whose bank
was an appellee in American Inn's lawsuit on appeal and himself chose in
action as a main conspirator), was appointed attorney for the Trustee to
prosecute an Adversary action against us-falsely alleging fraudulent
transfers and breach of fiduciary duties while debtor in possession.

The judge allowed three law firms to undertake American Inn's bankruptcy
and conspire with the trustees and the bank's lawyer to defeat American
Inn's appeal and block American Inn's reorganization. He allowed the bank
to evade being brought to justice and allowed the bank's lawyer to prosecute
a sham adversary suit against us. Judge Bohanon, in his response to our
written request to protect our rights, wrote, in part: "You may not expect the
court will notify or advise you of any violation of any rights you may have.
It is the function of this court to hear and determine disputes. If you wish to
seek advise concerning your rights you should retain a competent attorney or
otherwise inform yourselves."

Judge Bohanon knew about, and allowed, our lawyer who had filed a motion
to withdraw in accord with an agreement to be our witness in the adversary
suit pursuant to his previously filed witness affidavit. He had agreed to attest
to the bank's and our second lawyer's fraund in the state court case, admitting that
they conspired in driving American Inn into bankruptcy.

Minutes after judge Bohanon granted the above motion, he awarded the bank
summary judgment (by default) on the bank lawyer's false, perjured
statement that we had failed to complete discovery, overturned the automatic
stay and converted the CH-11 to CH-7.


Judge Bohanon allowed R.W. Abbott to abandon his undertaking of
the American Inn bankruptcy, and keep $3,200.00 of the unearned fee paid on his agreement to do a
"cram down" against the bank, then hired him to draft and send
the judgments by U.S. Mail to our home in Texas!

Judge Bohanon, on our motion filed pro-se, discharged Rolinaitis and
appointed L. Win Holbrook successor Trustee in the case. On our complaint,
verbally, and by letter of Jan. 24, 1987, Holbrook obtained leave in the
Oklahoma Supreme Court for rehearing American Inn's Appeal in the
64, 709 case which was violated by the bank's lawyer, acting as an attorney
for his appellee bank, and the trustee, appellant. But Holbrook too succumbed
to the political influence, and abandoned rehearing the appeal.




Judge Layn Phillips
Judge Phillips violated our rights by fraudulently accepting re-assignment to
our case knowing his wife was associated with the Defendant's main
co-conspirator and chose in action, Alan Durbin. He acted in concert with
lawyers Floyd Taylor and Susan Manchester and Craig Dodd, to deprive us
of a trial by jury to protect his wife's law firm from paying damages. He
ignored even the watered down allegations of the Bank and attorney fraud
shown in their sham Petition and Amended Petition. Judge Phillips ignored
our objections and showing of the true facts that gave rise to our case and
allowed the lawyers to abandon us in the pattern set by their predecessors in
the State and U.S, Bankruptcy Court actions under blatantly false pretenses
and to keep (unearned) $10, 000.00 paid on their contingency fee agreements.
He had us travel (8 hours each way) to the Court in Okla. City, only to learn
he had continued the hearing. Judge Phillips committed me to (5 days) in
the OK Co. Jail on Magistrate Cauthron's Contempt of Court complaint,
involving my outburst that the bank's and pierce's statements, made at a hearing on assets, were false,
which the Magistrate had stated were irrelevant. The judge released me the next day, after
our counsel showed the Judge the document (which our counsel had withheld) at the hearing.

MORE ON OKLAHOMA PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT FROM THE OKLAHOMA STATE ARCHIVES.

http://www.state.ok.us/~oids/Prosecut-Miscon.htm


  ¶ 11:28 PM