Free Rodney K. Stanberry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEVURKsGoMI

Prosecutor Buzz Jordan's entire testimony for the Rule 32 Hearing.  Because of the size of the document, it is posted as Jordan 1 and Jordan 2. 

 In addition, here is a statement from Rene Whitecloud that the Mobile District Attorney's Office had in 1992/1993- BEFORE JORDAN's visit.

_______

Terrell Moore's Testimonial Immunity 

This statement took place in the law offices of Clark, Deen & Copeland. Assistant DA Buzz Jordan was present and gave testimonial immunity to Terrell Moore. Once Moore essentially confessed to the crimes and exonerated Rodney, ADA Buzz Jordan could not arrest him due to the terms of this immunity agreement that HE gave to Moore on April 2, 1993.  

Understand this, the DA's office has conviced the victim and the jury that Rodney and Rene Whitecloud committed the crimes when he had Moore's statement that stated that it was he (Moore) and Angel Melendez.  He could no longer touch Moore, by trial Wish was dead by a violent crime, Rene was in prison in New York, so Rodney remained the one person that could be tried, so the DA's office wants to family, the jury, the public to forget that someone else confessed to being at the house when the victim was shot and confessed who was the only person with him, the actual shooter, Melendez. See provision #3 of this testimonial immunity and then read the link below from Rodney's Rule 32 hearing- again, the DA's office wants to conveniently ignore Moore's confession. Jordan had already arrested Rodney by the time of this testimonial immunity was given and confession was made by Moore on April 2, 1993, he had the victim's statement that Rodney was at her house (see link below on statement and link under eyewitness misidentification), and he had a theory, everything else were inconvenient truths.   By the way, Rene's statement that the DA's office also had by this time corroborates Terrell's testimony! 

Mobile Assistant District Attorney Martha Tierney “encouraging” Terrell Moore to keep quiet about what he is willing to testify about- this is in 2001 during Rodney’s Rule 32 hearing: 

During Rodney's Rule 32 Hearing (Post Conviction Hearing requesting a new trial), Moore happened to be in the Mobile county lock-up. Rodney notified his attorney and Moore was brought to the stand to the surprise of Assistant District Attorney Martha Tierney. See how she reacted. She was not going to let him say what she already knew, that he confessed, knew details about the victim's home that only someone who was there would know. The DA's office continues to perpetuate the false statement that the victim identified Rodney from the time she got out of a coma. The ADA perpetuates the belief that Moore, someone who did not know Rodney was confessing to a crime to protect Rodney. It makes no sense, but they have long been concerned about the conviction and not the truth, which is anti-justice and anti-victim, as no one receives true justice when the wrong person is convicted.

Exculpatory Evidence- see this definition and example given courtesy of wikipedia.

Below is taken from an article entitled “Exculpatory Evidence -- Getting It and Using It” By Michael A. Collora; William A. Haddad. The article can be accessed via the following website: http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/572968765330abca85257714006d1e7b?OpenDocument

“The Duty
Defendants are entitled to all “evidence favorable to the accused … where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment[.]”8 Such exculpatory evidence includes information that is potentially useful in impeaching government witnesses.9 Evidence is material under Brady and Giglio if there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.10 The materiality standard does not, however, require a defendant to show that the disclosure of the suppressed material would have led to an acquittal.11 Instead, a defendant must prove that the failure to disclose the material caused the defendant to receive a trial that did not “result[] in a verdict worthy of confidence.”12

Absent a specific request from defense counsel, the government must turn over all evidence that “is obviously of such substantial value to the defense that elementary fairness requires it to be disclosed even without a specific request.”13 In addition, the “prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government’s behalf in the case, including the police.”14 Finally, the government’s attorneys have an ongoing constitutional responsibility to turn over all exculpatory material, whenever they find it, including post-conviction.15”