Here follows part II of this series on the wrongful incarceration and continued wrongful incarcertion of Brandon Moon. The assistant district Attorney John Davis who is referred to below is currently my opponent's right hand man, appellate division chief and has appeared in court as my opponent's defense attorney. These are direct quotes from pages 14 to 15 of the Moon complaint (a public document): This is the part of the complaint that is particularly bone-chilling. Keep in mind that the time period referenced below is during my opponent's administration.
"41. On May 14, 1996, while Brandon's fourth habeas corpus petition was pending, Assistant District Attorney Davis of the El Paso District Attorney's Office implemented a scheme whereby materials relating to Brandon's case-including El Paso Police Department files and the El Paso Sheriff's Department evidence logs reflecting the material sent to Lifecodes in 1989-were seized and sealed by John Doe, whose first and last names are unknown. The materials seized and sealed were significant to Brandon's case, in that they had Brady value and/or scientific analysis. Contrary to its obligations to maintain such exculpatory materials and turn them over to Brandon, the El Paso District Attorney's Office instead seized these materials and sealed them at their office. After having seized the materials and sealed them away, the El Paso District Attorney's office dispatched its investigator to the offices from whom it had seized the materials to ask for the materials. The investigator then executed affidavits stating that he failed to find the evidence at those locations; the very locations from which the El Paso County District Attorney's office had removed such materials just days before. Those affidavits were for the bad faith purposes of attacking the chain of evidence which El Paso County had disrupted and thereby undermining Brandon's pending habeas corpus petition.
42. On May 20, 1996, Defendant Assistant District Attorney John Davis filed a 75 page response to Brandon's fourth hebeas corpus petition. Through that response, the El Paso County District Attorney's Office attempted to lay the blame for lost evidence and chain of custody issues at Brandon's feet although he had no involvement in those issues. As part of the El Paso County District Attorney's Office's scheme to deny Brandon a meaningful hearing on his habeas petition, later that same day Davis presented Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to Judge Woodard-who was not the judge on the case-and Judge Woodard signed them. These Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were not presented to Brandon for conference or objection and were not accurate. These findings included such statements as "Applicant intentionally limited the evidence submitted to Lifecodes" which clearly contradicts the record that demonstrates that Brandon never submitted materials to Lifecodes because the court ordered the District Attorney to submit the evidence.
43. By taking this action as part of an ongoing pattern or scheme to deprive Brandon of his constitutionally protected right to due process, Assistant District Attorney Davis was acting with the constructive knowledge of the County of El Paso which through its deliberate indifference allowed Brandon to remain wrongfully incarcerated.
44. The El Paso District Attorney's Office's deliberate indifference to Brandon's rights caused him to remain incarcerated until 2004 when his pro bono lawyers from the Innocence Project in New York were able to secure the samples from the victim's ex-husband that proved his innocence. In early 2005, Brandon was formally exonerated on the grounds of actual innocence by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals."
Stay tuned. More to follow.
"41. On May 14, 1996, while Brandon's fourth habeas corpus petition was pending, Assistant District Attorney Davis of the El Paso District Attorney's Office implemented a scheme whereby materials relating to Brandon's case-including El Paso Police Department files and the El Paso Sheriff's Department evidence logs reflecting the material sent to Lifecodes in 1989-were seized and sealed by John Doe, whose first and last names are unknown. The materials seized and sealed were significant to Brandon's case, in that they had Brady value and/or scientific analysis. Contrary to its obligations to maintain such exculpatory materials and turn them over to Brandon, the El Paso District Attorney's Office instead seized these materials and sealed them at their office. After having seized the materials and sealed them away, the El Paso District Attorney's office dispatched its investigator to the offices from whom it had seized the materials to ask for the materials. The investigator then executed affidavits stating that he failed to find the evidence at those locations; the very locations from which the El Paso County District Attorney's office had removed such materials just days before. Those affidavits were for the bad faith purposes of attacking the chain of evidence which El Paso County had disrupted and thereby undermining Brandon's pending habeas corpus petition.
42. On May 20, 1996, Defendant Assistant District Attorney John Davis filed a 75 page response to Brandon's fourth hebeas corpus petition. Through that response, the El Paso County District Attorney's Office attempted to lay the blame for lost evidence and chain of custody issues at Brandon's feet although he had no involvement in those issues. As part of the El Paso County District Attorney's Office's scheme to deny Brandon a meaningful hearing on his habeas petition, later that same day Davis presented Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to Judge Woodard-who was not the judge on the case-and Judge Woodard signed them. These Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were not presented to Brandon for conference or objection and were not accurate. These findings included such statements as "Applicant intentionally limited the evidence submitted to Lifecodes" which clearly contradicts the record that demonstrates that Brandon never submitted materials to Lifecodes because the court ordered the District Attorney to submit the evidence.
43. By taking this action as part of an ongoing pattern or scheme to deprive Brandon of his constitutionally protected right to due process, Assistant District Attorney Davis was acting with the constructive knowledge of the County of El Paso which through its deliberate indifference allowed Brandon to remain wrongfully incarcerated.
44. The El Paso District Attorney's Office's deliberate indifference to Brandon's rights caused him to remain incarcerated until 2004 when his pro bono lawyers from the Innocence Project in New York were able to secure the samples from the victim's ex-husband that proved his innocence. In early 2005, Brandon was formally exonerated on the grounds of actual innocence by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals."
Stay tuned. More to follow.