Free Rodney K. Stanberry

 

6)     Eyewitnesses and paperwork place Rodney at work when these crimes were said to occur.  Contrary to victim’s testimony that she saw Rodney’s truck in her driveway that morning, witnesses place his truck at work.  In addition, a neighbor testified in court that the person who confessed is the person he saw and he described the car he was driving. A witness that the defense brought to court testified that he saw what he thought was Rodney’s brown bronco in the medium, when it was actually a brown vehicle owned by a mechanic who was working on a car- as court testimony indicates.

7)     The Assistant District Attorney successfully entered a motion in Limine in which his said: 1) he questions the testimony of Terrell Moore, not admitting that the confession was taken while he was present, 2) he questioned the existence of the two individuals from New York (one of whom was the shooter) saying “ And then there are two people from New York supposedly, a Rene or Rennie Whitecloud and an Angel Melendez. I’m not vouching that any of these people exist or did exist, because there are serious questions about that as well” (p. 6 of trial transcripts). 

 

This is significant because 1) the Assistant DA had in his possession a statement from Rene Whitecloud that was not mentioned at trial and 2) The Assistant District Attorney visited Rene before the trial!  It wasn’t until Rodney’s Rule 32 that he admitted that he went to New York (Riker’s Island ) but said that he just happened to go up there while on vacation to see if he actually existed.  The fact that he stated at the start of the trial on record that he, in that moment, doesn’t think Rene and Angel existed should be grounds for reopening the case.   The District Attorney, John Tyson, Jr. told me (Artemesia Stanberry) in a letter that Buzz Jordan (the Assistant DA) had indeed gone to New York to further pursue the investigation of the case. If this is true, Jordan openly misled the court- the Court granted him his motion based on this!  The Motion in limine allowed for evidence (or mentioning of evidence) to not to be introduced at trial. That is to say that the confession, references to individuals from New York and other individuals would be considered hearsay, and thus not allowed in court. So the jury was not able to hear any of this evidence- NOT EVEN THE CONFESSION.

8)     No one else was tried for shooting the victim.  The person who confessed, as well as witnesses, said that two people entered the home, one of these people was the shooter and Rodney was not tried for shooting the victim.  The prosecutor told the jury and the local paper stated that Rene Whitecloud would be brought to Mobile for trial. 1) That never happened (nor, as the person who confessed testified, was he the shooter) and 2) it is further admission that the very person that Jordan said did not exist in pursuing the case against Rodney, did exist (and he wasn’t the shooter).

9)     Rodney gave the original detective information about a Det. in New York to apprehend the two people who were returning- one of whom actually entered the victim’s home and shot her. He even called the Det. In New York , but Prichard police said that the didn’t need to get them involved, that they can handle things—famous last words.  If they had utilized Rodney’s contact and apprehended these two individuals, Rodney never would have gone through this ordeal. 

10) The prosecutor convicted Rodney almost exclusive on eyewitness testimony. 3/4^th’s of the convictions that have been overturned via use of DNA technology have been based on eyewitness identification. The ADA had no evidence to convict Rodney, there were no masks, gloves, fingerprints, his coworkers- including his supervisor- confirmed his whereabouts. The Assistant District Attorney in selecting the jury said "Ladies and Gentleman, there will be no fingerprints in this case. There will be no weapon that was used. There will be no ballistics. There will be no blood. There will be no fingerprints, no videotape of the actual crime being committed. Do any of you require those things before you can personally convict somebody? Would you actually have to have physical scientific evidence before you could be satisfied that a crime had been committed or that a particular person had committed a crime? Anybody at all?" Rodney K. Stanberry v. State of Alabama, p 44.

11) The ADA had a theory that drove him, rather than evidence and facts.

_________________________________________

The quote below is taken from a document drafted by Atty. Tim W. Flemming, December 13, 1996.

 

"In its brief, the state seeks to hide behind the 'hearsay' laws in justifying the exclusion of Mr. Moore's testimony.  Stanberry's 'hearsay' arguments presented herein, coupled with immunity arguments warrant this court to reverse the defendant's conviction and either render a verdict in his favor, or alternatively, remand this case for a new trial. 

Mr. Stanberry is an innocent man, falsely accused, wrongfully convicted, even while possessing extraordinary evidence proving his innocence.  The State’s meager attempts to pursue the leads provided by Mr. Moore are insulting to the ends of justice. Mr. Stanberry should be set free. At the very least, such incredible evidence, coupled with the extraordinary alibi evidence presented by him should warrant a new trial.  If the law in

Alabama

is such that Mr. Moore’s statements are inadmissible, then the law should be changed. It’s bad law.  An innocent man should receive justice.  Justice demands that Mr. Stanberry either be given a new trial, or that his conviction be reversed and rendered.  As Judge Bell announced,

Alabama

should change the law and allow this type of evidence to be admitted.” This was taken from an appeal made by Rodney’s appellant attorney Tim W. Fleming  in 1996 (Response. SCT- Ex parte Rodney Karl Stanberry- Appellant’s Response to States Brief on the Merits of Petition for Writ of Certiorari, pg. 45-46. . (Note, Mr. Fleming worked for the Mobile DA’s office during the 1990s. Remember, Rodney was arrested in 1992, tried and convicted in 1995 and began serving his sentence in 1997).