|
|
文章數：95 |
 How many innocent people have been wrongfully convicted by Court?中文版將於07/16/18 |
| 在地生活｜北美 2018/07/13 10:22:06 |
How many innocent people have been wrongfully convicted by a misdemeanor Court? Due to accused is unfamiliar with the law. 英文版,中文版將於07/16/2018發布. The problem is if the misdemeanor court outsources deciding guilt or innocence to the police. Then your court hearing may not be conducted by an impartial and disinterested tribunal which may not render judgment only after trial consideration of evidence and facts as a whole. Especially when the Magisterial District Court is either not familiar with the law or ignores the law and the fact. The US criminal justice system can be complex and difficult for individuals to navigate if the accused is unfamiliar with it. The following is my own experience. Complaint of Judge Sandra L. Fegley MDJ-23-2-03, under 207 PA code rule 2.3(2). Complaint sent to PA State Attorny General.Mr. Richard Mxx who claimed to work for Wal-Mart at 5900 Perkiomen Ave, Reading, PA at the time of accident occurred and no longer worked for Wal-Mart in early April, 2018 as the only police officials witness. 1) When witness, Richard Mxx, on stand, his testimony claimed and repeated at least two times, if not three times, that a defendant, John Sxx, was angry something and used not a choose language. Defendant, John, tried to tell him that he was not angry--- before a defendant finished the whole sentence, judge Fegley interrupted that she did not want to hear that. If judge Fegley did not want to hear the defendant John cross-examined to dispute the witness’ testimony, then why judge fegley allowed the witness to repeat the same testimony over and over for more than two times without interrupting or stopping him. Judge Fegley interrupted the cross-examination of the witness by defendant John more than eight times as the defendant’s cross-examination of the witness to matters testified to on direct and matters bearing on credibility under and within the scope of PA 225rule 611(b). The defendant’s, John, right may be violated under Sixth Amendment, or under PA Confrontation Clause 225 rule 802, which a defendant has the right to confront a witness against him. 2) Witness Richard claimed and repeated twice that the defendant drove 5 to 10 miles (per hour) to back up his car and he (a defendant) seemed to anger something. The defendant John realized that witness contradicted himself in his court testimony and his witness statement which he was interviewed by State Farm and provided by State Farm to defendant. The witness Richard would be guilty of perjury under title18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(A) if he makes a false statement under oath. A truth and correct copy attached hereto marked as Exhibit “A”. The defendant found that the witness had intentionally testified falsely as to any material facts. The defendant John wanted to present the State Farms witness statement to Judge Fegley. Judge Fegley claimed that State Farm was not there (location of the accident), so you, the defendant, could not use the State Farm’s witness statement. I, the defendant’s witness, took out the smartphone. Judge Fegley thought that I tried to record a court hearing. So, she said that you, the defendant, could not record it (a court hearing) here. The defendant told Judge Fegley that we, a defendant and a defendant’ witness, wanted showed the pictures of our pickup truck. The pictures were taken by the defendant’s smartphone, the next day after the police official Anthony Shappell called defendant about the accident. The pickup truck has no sign or mark indicated that our pickup truck hit any car. Judge Fegley responded and said that she did not want to see the pictures. 3) That was the date, March 02, 2018, we had gusts of over 65 miles per hour, rained and poor visibility. Many cars parked in along the side of Wal-Mart building in the Wal-Mart’s driveway in front of Wal-Mart’s auto repair center. There are three lanes with waiting line rope dividers, approximate little bit over two car length. There two cars parked in first lane on our right as we faced the Wal-Mart auto repair center, the defendant parked in the center lane and no car in third lane on our left. The defendant was driving the pickup truck and I sat on a passenger side of the truck. The defendant backed up his pickup truck slowly and like he always does, watching carefully in all directions in conformity with the witness described in his State Farm witness statement “you (the defendant) were not driving in a wreckless (reckless) manner”. 4) Since many cars parked in along the side of Wal-Mart building in the Wal-Mart’s driveway in front of Wal-Mart’s auto repair center, defendant John asked the witness if Wal-Mart’s driveway is a part of Wal-Mart’s parking lot. The witness answered “yes” and claimed there was a sign of “for service parking” there. Defendant John then asked the witness, where the car (the vehicle involved in the accident) was parked. Judge Fegley interrupted the defendant’s cross-examination of the witness with a bit loud and somewhat intimidated voice. Judge Fegley claimed that was not an issue in the citation. The purposes of cross-examination are to test the credibility of witness’s statements under Pa.R.E. 611(b). The defendant was frustrated and asked Judge Fegley “what is an issue”. Judge Fegley said “the issue is”--then stopped and flipped over the pages of papers to look for either citation or the answer on her judicial bench for about one and half to two minutes and then said “you, a defendant, left the accident*”. The witness did not answer this question from the defendant’ cross-examination because of the interruption of Judge Fegley. The defendant John told Judge Fegley that he was not aware of hitting anything or a car on that date until a police official (Schappell) called next date (March 03, 2018). It was in consonance with the State Farm witness statement which the witness claimed “it did not appear that you (defendant john) realized that there had been any contact between your (the defendant’s) vehicle and the vehicle belonging to (Mr) William Cxx.” 5) Defendant John then asked the witness how was the distance from the defendant’s pickup truck to that car. The witness Richard was stumped for a moment and he seemed to be nervously as he looked at the police official, how close to that car (the vehicle involved in the accident)? The defendant followed up. The witness Richard had a nervous stammered. Then, the Judge Fegley interrupted the defendant cross-examination and claimed that was irrelevant** and the witness did not answer. The defendant John then asked the witness Richard if the witness Richard Mxx actually saw the defendant’s pickup truck hit the car. Judge Fegley interrupted again and claimed that was not relevant to-----the witness Richard answered the defendant’s question anyway before Judge Fegley finished the whole sentence. The Witness Richard Mxx claimed that he did not see the defendant’s pickup truck hit the car (Mr. William Crath’s car). He claimed that he heard someone (who) near the window (was) yelling “that pickup truck is going to hit that car”.*** The defendant John then asked the witness Richard where he was? Judge Fegley interrupted the defendant’s cross-examination and claimed it was irrelevant----but the witness answered the defendant’s question before Judge Fegley finished her sentence. Witness Richard claimed that he was at the register and behind the counter of auto service center. Judge Fegley declared defendant John guilty of leaving the accident. Wal-Mart auto care center at Exeter PA has own register separated from main check out registers. If the witness was at the register and behind the counter, then, his vision to outside would be limited due to the way Wal-Mart auto service center was setup. conclusion As a matter of law, In order for Magisterial District Court to find the defendant guilty, the Magisterial Court need sufficient evidences to prove that the defendant is guilty at the trial. The police official Anthony did not present any convincing evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, to reasonably support his case. The police official’s citation is based on an eyewitness Richard Mxx’s statement. However, the witness Richard did not see the defendant’s pickup truck hit the car during the defendant’s cross-examination. At this juncture, there was no any witness actually saw the defendant’s pickup truck hit Mr. William Cxx’s car (his vehicle involved in the accident) in conjunction with no sign or mark indicated that the defendant’s pickup truck hit any car. *I, a defendant’s witness, totally not agreed with Judge Fegley, where the vehicle involved in the accident parked is not only relevant to the case and also the defendant’s question to the witness can lead the defendant to determine the truthfulness and accuracy of the testimony of the witness under 225 PA. code rules 611(b)
** Again, I, a defendant’s witness, did not agree with Judge Fegley. The defendant may like to establish that the evidence presented by the witness Richard was sufficient to prove that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter under 225 PA.code rules 602. *** The witness’s testimony at the trial was hearsay and it was not admissible under 225 Pa. code rule 802. The defendant has appealed Judge Fegley’s ruling to Reading County Court, Reading, PA. on June 29, 2018. Ps. this complaint will be posted in my blog and in my Facebook as well as sent to Reading Eagle and Phila Inquiry by June 24, 2018 if there is no one in my complaint to object to my decision or answer to my complaint before June 24, 2018. At this juncture, on July 12, 2018, no one in my complaint responded or objected to the complaint. Thus, complaint has sent by email to Reading Eagle and Phila Inquiry on July 03, 2018 . CC. Magisterial District Court MDJ-23-2-03, police official Anthony Sxx, Witness Richard Mxx, State Farm and Wal-Mart. VIA FACSIMILEd or MAILED on June 14, 2018. The court hearing is compiled by Jennie, a defendant’s witness. Jennie PC Chiang/江佩珍
|
| 最新創作 |
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| 精選創作 |
|
||||
|
||||
