Supreme Court Ignores Polygraph Success and Refuses Death Penalty Review for Gregory Edward Wright
On June 18th, 2007, a Supreme Court Docket (No. 06-10186) on the Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Gregory Edward Wright's attorney, Bruce Anton, was updated with the bare words "Petition DENIED." The Supreme Court Justices, in authorizing these words, almost certainly condemned Connie Wright's husband to execution.
Livingston, Texas (PRWEB) June 27, 2007 -- On June 18th, 2007, a Supreme Court Docket (No. 06-10186) on the Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Gregory Edward Wright's attorney, Bruce Anton, was updated with the bare words "Petition DENIED." The Supreme Court Justices, in authorizing these words, almost certainly condemned Connie Wright's husband to execution.
Bruce Anton, a post-trial and current attorney for Gregory Wright, presented the following Overview of the case (No. 06-10186):
"Applicant, Gregory Edward Wright, was convicted of capital murder for the death of Donna Duncan Vick while in the course of robbing her. The majority of the evidence used to single out Wright as her assailant is circumstantial, as set out below. This circumstantial evidence is not sufficiently compelling to justify either a verdict of "guilty" or the imposition of the death penalty. Instead, the foundation of the death penalty prosecution was the statement of his co-defendant John Wade Adams. The State tried Wright and Adams separately. Wright was tried and convicted first. Adams was later convicted of Vick's murder and also assessed a death sentence, but on an altogether different theory of complicity. In Wright's trial, Adams's custodial statement, which placed full blame on Wright, was erroneously admitted solely because Wright's counsel failed to make a timely and proper objection. The deficiency of trial counsel in this regard is not seriously contested. Rather, the issue is the extent of prejudice to Wright's conviction, as well as his sentence, caused by the wrongful admission of his co-defendant's out-of-court hearsay statement. Wright strenuously asserts that no reviewing court has correctly characterized the prosecution's theory presented at trial, nor the evidence mustered to support that theory. Wright further claims that an inappropriate harsh standard of review was used to deny Wright an appeal."
The reasons, stated in the Petition (No. 06-10186), why the Writ should be granted were:
1. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals incorrectly denied Wright's petition for a certificate of appealability where Wright made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and the Court of Appeals erroneously assessed Wright's claims on the merits rather than under the deferential screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. §2253.
2. Wright's claim for relief, (claim 6b in his state writ) was that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel when trial counsel failed to properly object to the admission and subsequent use of Adams's out-of-court statement.
The Petition was concluded with this Summary:
"Gregory Wright was convicted of capital murder and assessed the death penalty because his trial attorneys failed to object to a clearly inadmissible and unreliable out- of-court statement made by his co-defendant John Adams. Unfortunately, the lower courts have denied Wright a proper review. The denial stems from a misconception that Wright was convicted as a co-actor in the murder, when, in fact, the Court's charge and the prosecution's arguments cast him as the sole perpetrator. The denial also stems from a misapprehension of the evidence. The reviewing courts have consistently held that all of the evidence in the case points to Wright and not to Adams. However, absent the admission of Adams's statement, which provides a framework around which all the other evidence can be reconciled, the evidence of Wright's guilt is admittedly circumstantial and ambiguous. Wright has made a sufficient showing of prejudice under the Strickland standard to merit consideration on appeal. Nonetheless, the Fifth Circuit denied Wright a certificate of appealability as the circuit customarily does in death penalty litigation. Instead of perusing Wright's claim in accordance with the screening process envisioned by Miller-El, the Fifth Circuit reviewed Wright's prejudice claim on the merits without affording Wright a fair opportunity to prosecute a full appeal of his claim. This Court should grant relief to Wright and by so doing reinforce the vitality of the Miller-El decision in the Fifth Circuit."
Subsequently to the filing of the Petition, Wright undertook a voluntary Polygraph to test the truth of his statements of innocence. He passed the test comfortably. His Texas State Licenced examiner, Joe D. Morris, states on the certificate (copy available on www.freegregwright.com), "After three test charts and a number of stimulus test were administered, an analysis of the polygraph charts were made, and in my opinion Mr Wright is being truthful in all his answers to the relevant test questions. Mr Wright's test charts were numerically graded to be a positive seven (+7). A score of positive seven (+7) is considered to indicated a test subject having "No Deception Indicated" or a truthful polygraph subject."
Friend and supporter, Peter Bellamy, says "Justice requires a process of review to ensure that the innocent are not trapped through error in a spiral leading to execution. Or at least, that is what the US public believe is the purpose of review. The reality is, that without significant proof of legal misdemeanor during the trial process or subsequent appeal, or significant new evidence such as provided by DNA testing, the process of review never extends to a re-examination of the trial evidence. The assumption is that it must be right; that it was properly presented and tested; and that it has been correctly interpreted by a lay jury. The Justice system reviews it's own procedures and legal interpretations, but in truth, the assessment of guilt or innocence is not routinely part of the process. With 56 exonerations in 10 years, 10 after DNA tests, it is surely time to change the focus of reviews at all levels of the appeal process."
###
Post Comment:
Trackback URL: http://www.prweb.com/pingpr.php/UGlnZy1Ib3JyLUZhbHUtQ291cC1UaGlyLVplcm8=
Bookmark -
Del.icio.us |
Furl It |
Technorati |
Ask |
MyWeb |
Propeller |
Live Bookmarks |
Newsvine |
TailRank |
Reddit |
Slashdot |
Digg |
Stumbleupon |
Google Bookmarks |
Sphere |
Blink It |
Spurl
|
