TULSA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, OK
James Bauhaus ( Denial p1
box 220-88367 ( Denial p2
Hominy, OK 74035 (
( Case No. F-73-24
Oklahoma (
PCR 22: 1080 Et SeqSynopsis
On 8-9-74 Tulsa County District Judge Raymond Graham assessed life after a jury declared guilt of murder. The trial Public Defender was James E. Wallace: appeal Public Defender was Alan Smallwood. (See Bauhaus v OK 532 p2d 434 (OK cr. ap. 75) I sought further review many times through eight courts and 39 judges from 1996 to 2000, (See a partial list labeled "Cases") due to new evidence. All were lost to technicalities without reaching the merits (How I grew five inches of wrong-color hair in just seven days). None were published; most relied upon an opinion from ex-judge Sven Eric Holmes that mis-stated facts and evidence. (See Bauhaus v Ron Ward, 96-cv-929-H, 3-31-98 from US Fed. N. OK.) My decades of research into this case indicates that a young man was hired to kill Mr. Hunt for being an informer for the Tulsa Police during the porn wars between top Tulsa and Oklahoma City prosecutors S. M. "Buddy" Fallis and Andrew Coats, both of whom sought the governor's seat. (See official Tulsa Police Department report Exhibit A which indicates that Mr. Hunt expected "someone" to put a bomb in his car, presumably one or more of his fellow porn dealers he'd helped police convict, fine and imprison.) The young man lay in wait for Mr. and Mrs. Hunt to complete their daily routine and return home at 2:30 PM. Soon as they returned, the young man shot Mr. Hunt once in his heart, while ignoring the witness to his murder. He then escaped by crashing through a locked glass door, slashing himself so badly on the glass that he must retain permanant scars on his forearms or hands. He left much of his own blood on the porch, on a fence he hopped that had to have punctured his palm, and splattered blood for two to five blocks more that police followed a dog along to their only other witness. Jurors declared guilt solely on the basis of these two witnesses despite the existence of plenty of physical evidence that inexplicably was never volunteered to the defense, as required by Due Process, Equal Protection, fair trial and the law. (See "Fundamental Fairness" requirement of the Due Process Clause.) I ask that my poor attempt to appear pro se is given the benefit of Haines v Kerner 92 S. Ct. 594 (1972).
Facts and Salient Points
Now the newly-uncovered evidence is a letter from "Anonymous Officer, Tulsa Police Department, Identification Division" to "FBI Lab". Exhibit 1 In the second paragraph, Officer X assures FBI Lab that no one has tested this evidence he submits. Officer X further assures FBI Lab that no other experts will ever be afforded any chance to test this evidence. This sentence tells why all nine known samples of the killer's blood were impossible for the defense to obtain despite separate attempts by attorneys William H. Mattingly, George Briggs, James E. Wallace and defendant in the 20 months prior to trial. This sentence alone reveals a strategy being perpetrated to prevent exhonorative evidence from reaching the defense. This is pre-meditated violation of Due Process which prevented fair trial. There is only one reason for Officer X to assure FBI Lab that no other experts have or will test this blood: materiality. Officer X KNOWS that the killer's blood is material to the defense. Officer X knows that the killer's blood is exculpatory toward their chosen target and crucial to his defense. Officer X knows that conviction of their named suspect, James Bauhaus, will become impossible if any of the many samples of the killer's blood escape police hands and are tested by outside technicians. (Shortly after Officer X and FBI Lab failed to type these seven (or eight) samples of the killer's blood, the FBI was uncovered to be massively incompetent, careless and negligent in evidence testing by a whistleblower. Such colossal, nationwide revelations of unreliability and probable evidence tampering led directly to the subsequent legislation of millions of dollars in free, taxpayer-paid grants so that state, city and county police departments could build and maintain their OWN evidence-processing facilities (crime labs), many of which have subsequently been found to be perpetrating the same kinds of wrongful conduct.)
Officer X then describes each of his seven collections of evidence as "blood". Officer X knows for certain that each of his seven samples are indeed blood rather than paint or dye; he knows that each sample is human blood; he knows that each sample came from a single human. Officer X knows all these facts for certain because he has an eyewitness who watched the entire crime occur from start to finish in excellent lightning from less than ten feet away from inside her home. She watched her husband shot to death and told many Tulsa Police Officers that the assailant was a young man with "brown, cleancut hair, (wearing no glasses)" who crashed through a glass door while escaping the crime scene. She later had a police artist, Lou Arche, draw the kid, and Tulsa Police now admit to having posted many copies of her drawing of this killer "at strategic points throughout..." their police department for months. Exhibit C
Having just told FBI Lab three times that every sample is blood, Officer X next requests FBI Lab to test the seven samples to see if they are "human" blood, as if there is a possibility that their eyewitness is mistaken and that some type of animal "...assilant (sic) ran through a back door, cutting himself (emphasis added) ...leaving a trail of blood." In this same paragraph, Officer X advises FBI Lab that the Tulsa Police DC have a suspect to link the crime onto, but does NOT have any of his blood. This extra, un-necessary, unscientific methodology and information appears to have been inserted to make it loud and clear to FBI Lab that no gun-wielding animal is involved and that actually typing the blood is not desired.
Recounting the service request, FBI Lab knows these following facts:
1. This case is about a single homicide.
2. There is one suspect.
3. These are all samples of human blood from one person.
4. No one has been allowed to test any of this blood.
5. No one will be allowed to test any of this blood to quality-check FBI Lab's report.
6. Officer X requests a test that is clearly un-necessary, ostensibly to uncover what is already known, (that a human shot the victim, cut himself and left a trail of blood.)
7. Officer X does NOT ask that the suspect's blood be typed: he only wishes to learn "...if it can be typed."
FBI Lab gets this message on performing un-necessary tests and not typing the blood loud and clear. FBI Lab thus does better than asked: FBI Lab pretends that the killer's blood may be paint or dye. (The "hemo" test certifies that the substance contains the blood protein that life uses to sequester oxygen for respiration.) FBI Lab pretends that human blood may possibly be animal blood. (Anti-H #29 is a rabbit antibody that clumps in response to human blood:) FBI Lab does better than asked by pretending that seven or eight different suspects may have shot the victim, cut themselves on the glass door and left seven or eight different types of blood on the porch, broken glass, fence, crosswalks and sidewalks, etc. by not pooling the blood. (If there was any question, FBI Lab could have faxed or called Officer X to find out.) Instead, FBI Lab uses these clearly false assumptions to perform eight un-asked-for tests, eight unnecessary tests and then eight "failed" tests. Exhibit 2, "Blood Examination") FBI lab's handwriting is clearly seen on the service request of Officer X, switching a known quality, blood, to what it is not, "red-brown stains" and "scrapings".
This is destruction of evidence.
Apparently, this evidence from one assailant who left one blood trail was divided into seven or eight samples, and not pooled, so that it could be made into "QNS" (Quantity Not Sufficient) for typing. This strategy is even more clear in view of the fact that we now know that at least three forensic experts (Coroner/Serologist Doctor Stuart Thomas Hinkle and Officers Yarbrough and Peyton from the Identification Division of the Tulsa Police Department) collected nine or more samples of the killer's blood from this crime scene. Each expert is reasonably expected to be competent to collect plenty of this large supply of killer's blood for typing. It is highly unlikely that all three Identification Experts were incompetent. Hence the eight un-asked-for tests, the eight un-necessary tests, and the eight "QNS" declarations.
More of the new evidence is the textbook that Dr. Hinkle and FBI Lab were using at the time. Exhibit 3 "Criminalistics; an introduction to forensic science" by Richard Saferstein, Ph.D. p. 324, 'Typing Dried Blood Stains'. It says that the "absorption-elution" test is "...sufficiently sensitive to type stains (of blood) on a thread of fiber that is (only) one-half inch in length."
This fact negates FBI Lab's "QNS" opinions, because the amount of blood that can adhere to a fiber half an inch long is nearly microscopic when it is scraped off. Since FBI Lab was able to see the eight samples and make 16 previous tests on them, it is almost certain that each of the eight samples were large enough to type. If riot, the pooled samples were certainly more than enough to type:
More new evidence of the blood destruction is Exhibit 4, "Laboratory Work Sheet". Please place exhibit four next to exhibit one. Notice how the information on Officer X's service request is transferred to the Laboratory Work Sheet. Every reference to blood has been carefully expunged and changed to "...stains", "...glass" and "scrapings". Deliberate destruction of crucial exculpatory information is the same as destruction of the evidence itself, especially where there is proof that the Tulsa Police intended that no other expert was to be allowed to access this blood.
Also please notice the dates on each exhibit. The service request was written thursdav 2-8-73. This is a very long time since the murder (10-17-72) when three to six forensic experts and a Coroner/Serologist collected nine known samples of the killer's blood: 114 days, to be exact. Coroner/Serologist Dr. Hinkle was given a sample to type in his own laboratory the same hour of the murder; Exhibit D it was never mentioned or offered prior to or at trial, and it disappeared, along with its chain of custody records.) Why would they let their blood samples rot in storage for over three months after giving their Coroner/Serologist, Dr. Hinkle, the first of nine or more samples of the killer's blood on 10-17-72? Such illogical, anomalous behavior with crucial evidence essential to correctly identifying the actual killer strongly suggests that Dr. Hinkle typed this first sample of blood and that there was no need to re-type the killer's blood when it was found that their chosen target was so desperate to get exonerated through its analysis. One hundred and fourteen days later prosecutors decided that there was a need to bridge the long gap between the State's only convicting evidence; two eyewitnesses. These witnesses were Mrs. Hunt, who watched the crime transpire, and Mrs. Baker, who saw a kid run by at top speed from the side and behind her head. (Transcript testimony, Mrs. Baker)
At the top right corner of Officer X's service request is the FBI's hand-written notation indicating that they received it Monday, 2-12-73. This is the same day that someone deliberately expunged Officer X's blood information and substituted "stains, glass and scrapings". On exhibit two, "Blood Examination", the date is in question. One can either presume that FBI Lab performed 24 complicated scientific tests on the very next day, 2-13-73, or that he changed the date to a more plausible 2-15-73. Either way, it is amazing that the FBI lab could so swiftly get to this case among the thousands of requests it got nationally and internationally at a time when almost no other crime labs existed in America.
Soon as the hard work of testing was done, the stuff sat on FBI Lab's desk for 19 to 21 days. Finally, on 3-6-73 FBI Lab hand-wrote his findings in one sentence, his instructions in another sentence, then handed it to his secretary, "ju". She promptly transcribed it onto another form Exhibit 5 and sent it out the same day. From this last instruction, we now discover the only surviving link in what should have been a very long, doubly-linked chain of custody on this crucial evidence that is essential to uncovering the exact identity of the actual killer of Mr. Hunt. Tulsa Police Officer X was the last man to possess the killer's blood. FBI Lab sent it directly to Officer X.
PETITION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
I hereby request an evidentiary hearing to subpoena Officer X, who is known to be Tulsa Police Officer Donald Peyton, to make him answer: what he did with this killer's blood; why he told FBI Lab that the blood had not been tested and would not be tested by any other experts; why he asked for un-necessary tests; why he did not pool the blood; why he did not ask for it to be typed; why he didn't volunteer this blood to defense, as required by law, and; other questions that may be crucial to this wrongful conviction. Exhibit 5a Exhibit 5b
I further ask that FBI Lab be unearthed so that he may answer why he performed unasked-for tests.
I have asserted my absolute innocence ever since 1-4-73, the same day that Tulsa Police Officer Detective Sergeant Larry Johnson called his media tools and had them spread my picture with his false accusations proclaiming, anonymously, that I was the killer of Mr. Hunt, exactly as he had sworn he would to me 1-3-73 when he failed to find any glass slashes on my hands, arms or legs and failed to find any puncture wound scars on my palms from leaping the Hunt's chain-link fence Exhibit E I continue to assert rny innocence to this day, and have fulfilled, with this new evidence, all aspects that I can see of Brady, Schlup and Herrera: exculpatory, material-to-innocence evidence deliberately suppressed by police and prosecution in a bad-faith attempt to prevent fair trial, causing prejudice, violating Due Process and undermining confidence in the verdict. (See Caselaw Appendix, numbers 1,2,3,6,7 and 9 - 16)
This case hinges upon identity. State ignored the best evidence rule. State failed to type its stockpile of the killer's blood. State failed to use and save its stockpile of the killer's fingerprints for when/if the actual killer's prints were recorded in the police's database. State instead chose to use the most UN-reliable evidence possible: two easily manipulated and tainted eyewitnesses. Thanks to a change in the caselaw brought about by the thousands of innocent prisoners uncovered by DNA, blood, just like semen, (caselaw #10) is "always significant" and "material", (caselaw #1) since, "such evidence is material 'if there is a reasonable probability that, had the (full scope of) the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result ...would have been different" and a "showing of materiality does not require demonstration by a preponderance that disclosure of the suppressed evidence would have resulted...in...acquittal". Even more fair, "The reversal of a conviction is required d upon a. 'showing 'that the favorable evidence could . . . undermine confidence in the verdict'." Also, due to my having uncovered bad faith in Officer X admitting to FBI Lab that no other experts had tested, or would ever be permitted to test the killer's blood, proving by a reliable source, (a signed police service request) that the killer's blood is both material and exculpatory, I have established that, "It is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable-doubt." (caselaw #2) This is especially true when seeing the totality of this case, particularly the fact of the extreme unreliability of the State's only convicting evidence in this case: two eyewitness accusors whose in-court identification failed to match their original descriptions (and drawings) at the crime scene, minutes after the murder.
It appears that if the judge agrees that I've fulfilled Brady, Schlup and Herrera, he "must consider 'all the evidence' , old and new" (caselaw #4) This permits petitioner to reiterate how very shakey and unreliable, even perjurous, testimony at the trial was. Mrs. Hunt is seen to be a bold liar at trial, unafraid of performing flagrant perjury in the presence of the judge, prosecutor, public defender, police and jurors about her address while under oath. (tr. p. 23 L. 9-12 and p. 38 L. 10-16) We could not know that she was lying to everyone on tr. p. 33. Here she officially switched her story to a killer having black hair, exactly as she saw my hair to be black in the courtroom that day, from a killer whom she'd first described as having brown hair. Thanks to suppression of Mrs. Hunt's original description of the killer minutes after the murder, and to suppression of the drawing she aided police artist Lou Arche in making of the killer, which also shows she put brown hair on him (see police microfilm) defense was not allowed to catch this lie. Exhibit C
I don't really feel qualified to do any of this appeal, and thus ask for appointment of counsel due to my lack of an adequate law library and my inability to understand most legal nuances of requirements I must fulfill.
I got mauled at this before by ex-judge Sven Eric Holmes, who insisted that the 20months-later courtroom eyewitness fingerpointing at petitioner is somehow more accurate than the eyewitness' own description of the killer recorded by police mere minutes after watching her husband shot to death in good lighting from less than ten feet away. Exhibit B Mrs. Hunt's original description of the young killer is, by every scientific measure and by all logic, more accurate than ex-Judge Holmes' doctrine of "presumed correctness of the trial court". My apologies to ex Judge Holmes, but no one's memory improves with the passage of time. Memories only steadily deteriorate as 20 months pass. I ask that standard tests of the reliability of eyewitness evidence take precedence over the presumed correct doctrine. Also, memories are fogged by the police constantly bringing pictures of previously-convicted criminals and many high-school yearbooks for Mrs. Hunt and Mrs. Baker to choose suspects from. Mrs. Hunt's first description of the killer minutes after the murder logically and scientifically trumps the Presumed Correct Doctrine, especially when 20 months pass between the crime and trial. Further evidence of Mrs. Hunt's initial accuracy is the police-recorded killer-description of the State's suppressed eyewitness, Candice Connors, whose own killer description appears on Exhibit B and which matches Mrs. Hunt's description, as well as Mrs. Baker's description. (The prosecution withheld from the defendant and the defense all of these women's initial descriptions of the killer and withheld all their drawings of him too. The killer is three-times described as having short, brown hair (no glasses), corroborating each other in three aspects or more. Newspaper photos of defendant at that time prove he had piles of unkempt, frizzy, black hair that flowed over his ears and down his collar Exhibit C that could not be mistaken by anyone as "short, neat, clean-cut or brown".
Ex Judge Holmes never did address defendant's main point of how it was physically possible for him to have grown five inches of wrong-color hair in just seven days. (Human head-hair grows at a rate of only half an inch per month) He also never addressed the fact that Mrs. Baker noticed this hair-length discrepancy when chief investigator Sergeant McCullough went to her home with the admitted purpose of showing her a picture of petitioner. Officer McCullough claims to have conducted a standard police photo "lineup", which is, by tradition and police textbook rules, held in secret, with no witnesses or lawyers permitted to "distract" the accusor. Such photo lineups have long been discredited as more useful for manipulating witnesses than for identifying criminals in any scientific way. (See IL Gov. George Ryan's study and recommendations of his panel appointed to study why his death row was found to be only 50%accurate.) Caselaw is full of examples where police are caught using this method to steer witnesses to specific suspects chosen by police. If our law library hadn't been stripped of its Shepardization capability and wasn't years out of date, plus full of time constraints due to overcrowding, I could cite a few examples. This photo lineup that Officer McCullough performed and then reported about is typical. He is modeling it after the one that he and Detective Sergeant Larry Johnson performed for Mrs. Hunt. Their sole purpose was to get her to sign a receipt for her testimony against petitioner. This signed receipt functions to prevent the witness from changing her testimony to "I don't know!" when she is faced with defense proof that the suspect is in fact innocent via DNA, as is the case with hundreds of convicted "rapists" and other wrongfully convicted citizens. Exhibit E and Exhibit F Once police get a witness to sign on to some particular suspect, police typically stop all investigative efforts against other, possibly better, suspects. Instead, they begin constructing a case against their chosen suspect.
Officer McCullough's twin goals in going to Mrs. Baker's home is (1) to press her into agreeing with Mrs. Hunt's choice, and (2) obtaining another signed receipt for testimony against petitioner. Whatever Officer McCullough did at Mrs. Baker's home, he failed to get her to sign on to testifying against defendant, else we'd see a receipt for Mrs. Baker's testimony against petitioner, exactly as is required by police policy and same as the Tulsa Police produced from Mrs. Hunt. Exhibit F Also in Officer McCullough's weeks-late "weekly" report, which appears hurriedly completed, Officer McCullough immediately begins tripping over his tongue, figuratively speaking. He starts out using the standard police formula of "I showed her photographs" (plural) but in sentence two he returns to what probably really occurred and says, "Mrs. Baker viewed the photograph (singular) and identified #3 from the left." There is no scientific reason for the photos to be placed in the same order as Mrs. Hunt's lineup. In fact, scientific accuracy and methodology is sacrificed by using this non-random technique. It gives Officer McCullough a better unconscious ability to provide Mrs. Baker with subliminal clues as to which picture Officer McCullough prefers her to choose (the one that causes his investigation to cease and construction of a case to begin; a middle milestone in police work, signifying that the uphill is over and the downhill begins). Exhibit C
But Officer McCullough is very busy with many cases to attend and can't be expected to infallibly remember every detail, so, to make his job easier, each photo is numbered. This way he always knows which suspect Mrs. Hunt settled on and which picture he was sent (by Larry Johnson) to sell Mrs. Baker on. Typically, when one of these photo "lineups" is performed and fails to go as planned, police realize how much time and effort goes down the drain when they can't get witnesses to agree on one suspect, No one is watching: they slip from Police Textbook mode and into "Ernest Protector" mode. Officer McCullough no doubt, exactly like we saw his fellow Officer Peyton do with FBI Lab, began informing Mrs. Baker of "facts" she had no scientific, fair or impartial reason to possess. In short, Officer McCullough poured in plenty of prejudice, telling Mrs. Baker that: We know Bauhaus killed Mr. Hunt. Mrs. Hunt already chose Bauhaus out of this same lineup. If you don't pick Bauhaus, a killer will escape justice ...etc, etc. This common police method of "nudging" justice did not work this time. Instead, Mrs. Baker told Officer McCullough that he is wrong to try and sell Bauhaus to her as the killer. Mrs. Baker tells Officer McCullough: I remember seeing this kid in the newspaper (and probably on TV) seven days after the Hunt Murder. His hair was much longer than the hair on the picture of him that you brought me. Also, this kid's hair was much longer than the hair on the criminal I saw run by me at the school. This kid's hair at the time of the Hunt murder was longer than the description I gave of the murderer to your police artist. I excluded this kid as the murderer 87 days ago because his hair was too long. I don't care what you and Mrs. Hunt say: you are wrong. I will not sign on as his accuser.
In trying to write his report. Officer McCullough had to cogitate about this development for some weeks, trying to figure a way around this problem. Finally he just begins writing arid stumbles again, realizing that it sounds suspicious to type, "Mrs. Baker kept referring to #3 as looking like Bauhaus...(emphasis added). The correct and probable reality-based way for Mrs. Baker to refer to #3 is, "...as looking like the kid I saw run by me at school." Mrs. Baker is not likely to have remembered petitioner's name from the hundreds of names and pictures that Tulsa Police Officers have been bringing her for the past 87 days. Officer McCullough quickly cleans this up by adding a quick explanation rather than re-typing the entire report. He types: I didn't tell Mrs. Baker Bauhaus' name until after she pointed at his picture. She'll testify against him (even though she refused to sign or even initial (another standard police policy) Bauhaus' picture, as is standard police photo lineup practice). See the police report. (See "On False Identification" by Prof. E. Loftus, Univ. of OR)
More evidence of Mrs. Baker's lack of identification of defendant occurs on tr. p. 75 (no glasses on killer; I've worn glasses since age twelve, being too nearsighted to go abroad without them) and tr. p. 76-77, where Mrs. Baker gets very agitated and defensive over a testimonial recounting of a phone call from defendant's Public Defender, Mr. Wallace. Mr. Wallace told petitioner that Mrs. Baker admitted that she had not identified anyone for Police the saturday before trial. This indicates that she inexplicably decided to change her mind and accuse me monday, probably the very day of showing up for the prosecution to "go over her testimony", where she probably met Mrs. Hunt. (tr. p. 68, where she admits meeting Mrs. Hunt.) There is no other context for them to meet except with police and prosecutors in preparation for this trial. This had to be where prosecutors discovered the discrepancy between Officer McCullough's report and the reality of Mrs. Baker's refusal to indict petitioner as the killer. Indication of this is on tr. p. 93-95, where there appears to have been some shenanigans occurring over Mrs. Baker being a surprise witness whose name was not added to the prosecution's witness list until the last second. (I don't really understand what two things were occurring here, but, now that I'm not an ignorant-of-the law teenager, I do understand that during my confusion I should have asked that Mrs. Baker be made to watch me run at full speed, since I was forced to exhibit my tallness and glasseslessness to her and the jurors. (tr. p. 81-83) I am told by others that I run with an unmistakable limp due to a 1970 motorcycle accident that cost me an inch off my leg. Now that I know this caused a limp, I request an evidentiary hearing on this, and that Mrs. Baker witness my running ability, need of glasses and complete lack of glass-slash scars and palm-puncture wounds. I hereby request an evidentiary hearing on the old new evidence so that Mrs. Baker can be made to explain why she abruptly changed her mind from, "His hair was too long" and "I did not identify anyone to police as the killer" to "That's him!" (Mrs. Hunt was never given the chance to see that my hair was too long to be the killer she described to police and had a police artist draw, but she did know that my hair was the wrong color.) Sixteen months later, Officer McCullough's report is used to bludgeon perjury out of Mrs. Baker at trial by threatening her with charges of "lying to police". She had never identified defendant as the killer, yet Officer McCullough's report says she did. Who will be believed: her or the policeman? It is easier for her to switch her story from the truth to a lie than to try to continue to tell the truth against the full weight of the prosecutor and police. That she stood up to police/prosecutor bullying even a little bit shows she had strength of character.
But Mrs. Baker's testimony is still perjury. And Mrs. Hunt's testimony is perjury too. Mrs. Baker knew that petitioner's hair was too long, and Mrs. Hunt knew that petitioner's hair was the wrong color. Additionally, I renew every one of my counsel's six motions for mistrial, (tr. pgs. 66, 86, 93, 110, 134 and 177) and motion for new trial, since in view of the new evidence, no jury would convict me now, knowing that conviction was had due to perjury in both eyewitnesses, withholding of one witness and withholding of all physical evidence except a gun, bullet and some photographs of the victim and his home.
I also submit Exhibit R detailing how one of my family accidentally met the killer in her checkout line. Qunion Leigh also saw him at the trustee building at McAlester in 1979, but would not reveal his name. The fact that he and the real John Shelton were both in prison at the same time is unlikely to be a coincidence. (The killer used the name of "John Shelton" as an impromptu alias upon meeting my relative and mispronouncing the surname on her nametag.) The fact that the killer and John Shelton were both in prison at both McAlester prisons makes it certain that the killer's prints and picture are in OSP's and DOC's databases and got there between 1974 and 1979. Only about 1500 prisoners came from Tulsa. to the DOC at OSP-McAlester during this interval. The killer could be easily found with only a little cooperation by the authorities here.
More curious activity with the evidence can be seen on tr. p. 16. The Coroners did manage to type the victim's blood, for no apparent reason or purpose (Mr. Hunt was found to be A-positive), but somehow the coroners could not type the killer's blood, which is required for his non-controversial, positive identification.
Also, the Chief Investigator in charge of the case is Officer McCullough, (tr. p. 3, 115 and 123). Judging by his demeanor while testifying, there is the distinct impression that he is ashamed of his work on this case and that he is afraid to be assigned credit for it. He distances himself from this case, as if he expects such a shoddy edifice of seeming chicanery to blow up in his face. He tries to lessen his responsibility for this case by pretending that reports are forwarded to some OTHER Chief Investigator's desk, (tr. p. 115 L. 1-8 and Exhibit H Chief Investigator McCullough also tries to duck down into the crowd of his underlings when asked about what happened to their stockpile of killer's fingerprints and blood, Exhibit I(tr. p. 123 L. 9 .
Chief Investigator McCullough is ashamed and afraid of this case because his mentor on it is Detective Sergeant Larry Johnson, and Officer Johnson is the one who had Officer McCullough steer Mrs. Hunt and Mrs. Baker onto me instead of the actual killer, who had short, clean-cut, brown hair, no glasses and ran without a limp. Officer Johnson and company got caught torturing me until I signed their papers, (Osage County Dist. Ct. case no. crf-72-801, attorney Howard Maddux' testimony and newspaper accounts of that time). Officer Johnson decided to use the Hunt murder to escape police brutality lawsuits. He decided to frame me for the Hunt murder in order to silence me. His plan began with having me tricked into stupidly being an "extra" in a line up. His signature is on a right's waiver I signed. Exhibit E Like the idiot kid I was who thought justice worked as told in school civics texts, I'd done nothing to get convicted of and insanely thought that I was safe from wrongful conviction and had nothing to fear. Sure enough, the sharks ate me alive for assenting to help them. Only later did I learn that Officer Johnson is scurrilous, Exhibit J I never learned that he'd orchestrated the lineup until after it was over. They shoved me into a room and Officer Johnson was in it, all smiles and gloats. He was the one who told me that Mrs. Hunt had just picked me for the murder. He was the one who had his media-tools publish and broadcast his anonymous lie about finding glass-slash scars on my arms in the 1-4-73 Tulsa papers. Officer Johnson also made sure that he was the one to drive me to prison in McAlester at 90 miles per hour so he could gloat all the way. This is the same Officer who cried to John Walsh for nine years trying to get me on his cop show while I was escaped, trying to find Mr. Hunt's killer. Instead, I found proof of my own innocence and of Officer Johnson's wrongdoing. Officer Johnson was later allowed to resign with his pension from Tulsa Police Department, vend a cover-story to the press about police work being too "stressful" and go to be a security guard in an un-named city far from Tulsa.
Coroner/Serologist Dr. Hinkle appears to be as ethical as Officer Johnson. When I uncovered the fact that Dr. Hinkle had gotten the first killer's-blood sample Exhibit D, and that his function was to type it, I wrote him, asking him what he had done with this blood and his findings. He responded with a glib letter. Exhibit K He told me (1) that he had his complete file of the Hunt murder from the coroner's office, (2) that he would be happy to ask himself what he had done with the killer's blood for only $150/hour and a $1,000 retainer, and, (3) I would have to give him my blood type. Exhibit K page 2
There is not any scientific reason for him to have my blood type. The only possible reason he could 'need' it is for the purpose of 'remembering' that the killer's blood type is exactly the same as mine. It is highly probable that Dr. Hinkle did type the killer's blood, just as he had typed Mr. Hunt's blood for his boss, Dr. Fogel. Just as likely is that this blood, his findings and the chain of custody were rotting in some storage bin until police realized the reason why my three Public Defenders and I wanted it so badly. Then it may have become part of Officer X's secret plan of no outsider eyes ever seeing it again.
Further evidence of probable wrongdoing involves Assistant District Attorney,Jerry Truster. He was the one who testified at my trial as he prosecuted me.' He made some childish interruptions of my Public Defender to insert snide remarks, such as "Bauhaus is about six feet tall: he could demonstrate for you!" (tr. p. 124) And "The burglary rate is up 19%; is that right?" (tr. p. 106) ADA Truster and his police knew that they may have blown their conviction plans for me unless they devised a plausible way to lose the killer's blood and fingerprints. This was not hard to do when faced with an ineffective Public Defender who had to take depressant drugs for his medical condition and a young teenager who believed in the American system of justice.
The first part of ADA Truster's plan to lose the blood and prints was to never volunteer any number or quantity of prints or blood. Officers McCullough and Yarborough would only admit to "some" prints and "some" blood was collected, then claimed not to know which of their fellow co-workers' job it was to do the collecting. I uncover, too late, that Officers Williams, Peyton, Yarbrough and Jarret found plenty of killer's fingerprints good enough to lift and store in file 11001 in their police department. Exhibit D G L and M If we count the objects they took and assume that they listed them because they found at least one print on each of the items, it turns out that they had to lose a minimum of 21 killer's fingerprints from various objects in the ransacked home. Officer Yarbrough had worked for Tulsa Police Department for 12 years (tr. p. 102) He knows all of his underlings at the scene. (tr. p. 103) He even knows that Officer Peyton processed the screwdriver for prints. (tr. p. 110) He doesn't volunteer that he was requested by Officer McCullough to give a killer's blood sample to their serologist, Dr. Hinkle, also at the scene, specifically for him to type, but he was. Exhibit D
In contrast, Officer McCullough had worked for TPD for 13.5 years. (tr. p. 111) He should have known most or all of the department heads and/or lead Officers, and what he and they did with the killer's blood and prints, but he volunteered nothing. His testimony from tr. pgs 125-133 is full of ADA Truster testifying for him and plenty of "I don't know". When it looks as if Officer McCullough is at last going to give a straight answer about fingerprints on the gun, the Judge inexplicably takes over and blocks everyone from finding out what is on the gun! (tr. p. 133) ADA Truster's desperation to excuse the loss of the killer's blood and prints to the jurors hits a peak during the last minutes of his second closing argument. He spends four pages testifying to the jurors, confusing them and me about how fingerprints get smudged and how useless they are. (tr. p. 240 - 243) He didn't mention to the jurors the fact that fingerprints, blood and other physical evidence is mostly useless because police and prosecutors actually prefer and actively pursue mere eyewitness 'evidence', both because it is readily believed and doesn't impose much in the way of constraints, as scientific evidence does. (Scientific American, July, 2006, "CSI Reality" on the newly postulated "CSI effect" to explain why jurors are becoming less eager to convict citizens simply because an accusor points a finger and recites the phrase, "I'm absolutely positive he did it!") ADA Truster, who has evidently known about what he and his workers did with the killer's blood all along, but never volunteered it, as required by law, fairness, Due Process, etc, blurts out to the jurors, "The blood sample went to the FBI Laboratory in Washington D. C. a report came back from the FBI Laboratory indicating that the amount of blood was insufficient in quantity." (tr. p. 241, Exhibit N ADA Truster wakes the jurors, plants "FBI Laboratory" in their heads twice. He twice stamps their brains with "insufficient quantity", then escapes into a thicket of confusion about why fingerprints are useless. Defense and defendant were thus cleverly denied the only things that could prove my innocence. ADA Truster fooled us all into thinking that the police were merely incompetent when he explained that "the sample" was only one sample instead of nine samples, and that "the sample" was "insufficient" when it is now proven that each of the nine actual samples was most likely plenty enough to be typed. ADA Truster also fooled us all into thinking that only one no-name policeman was incompetent instead of three to six Identification Division Experts with twelve years of experience and two Doctors, one a serologist, whose job is to know how much blood to collect.
More evidence of ADA Truster's possible wrongdoing appears in Private Investigator Floyd's report on how ADA Truster is thought to have personally destroyed the blood soon as conviction was had. Exhibit O
Prominent Attorney Richard O'Carroll does more to elucidate wrongdoing to PI John Floyd than merely relate long-time acquaintance Jerry Truster's actions as questionable. He actually puts on paper in a letter to me how he can easily understand how innocent persons like me can get convicted "...especially back on Buddy Fallis' watch." Exhibit P It is truly astonishing what people knew back then but were not saying, and what they were doing and not getting caught at. Exhibits O and P speak for themselves, so I'll not expand on every incident and action and how it fits in with all my other evidence of widespread wrongdoing connected to this case. I will, however, mention that about three years ago the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System released the fact that they were working on the cases of 750 (!) prisoners in which DNA evidence has not been released from police hands. Obviously, conviction of the innocent was not a big concern for people such as Joyce Gilchrist and others, who was caught tainting perhaps 5,000 criminal cases over 24 years of being an Oklahoma forensic chemist.
Wrongdoing continued to 1996 and spilled over to McAlester, OK District Court Judge Steven Taylor and his workers. (F-85-121) When I returned from my escape with most of the old new evidence records to try and use that trial for an attack on the wrongful conviction that the escape was built upon, it suddenly became impossible for me to be convicted of escape: Exhibit Q The media helps cover up the conspiracy to prevent trial quite well, but fails when it is seen that I don't care how "tainted" Judge Taylor says the juror pool is and my suggestion that we wait for the next juror pool is ignored.
Additional evidence of wrongdoing in this case even more recent in time is this: in 1997 Australian scientists perfected a method of extracting DNA from fingerprints. I appealed on this to get these tests done at my own expense, but to no avail. Three years later Attorney Richard O'Carroll and PI John Floyd tell me over the phone and in person, respectively, that their investigations find that the killer's fingerprints, along with the chain of custody records, vanished out of the Tulsa Police' vault-within-a-vault the same month of my appeal trying to get them tested. Exhibit T And just last year it has been documented that the Tulsa SWAT team got caught planting evidence. Apparently there is no way for me to win, as the evidence that will free me tends to vanish as I uncover it, and nothing appears to have been fixed in the way of evidence security for the past 35 years.
Another thing I can't seem to access is legal precedent. The last casualty of the Fallis/Coats porn wars in Tulsa was Mrs. Hunt herself. (Hunt v 0K, cr. ap. 601 p2d 470 (1979)) She won a 2/3rds cut in her sentence and fine solely due to an OCCA ruling in which the judges said, "Such is the same as mentioning a robbery case during a murder trial, and can not be allowed." This is almost exactly what ADA Truster said at my trial when he mentioned "...the burglary rate is up 19%..." during my trial. (Tr. p. 106) When Mrs. Hunt's prosecutor made this improper remark, OCCA cut 2/3rds off her sentence and fine. When my prosecutor made the same improper remark, OCCA ignores my sole contention and "declines" to rule. (HC-2000-962) I hereby reiterate my motion for Equal Protection of the law in regard to OCCA's Hunt ruling .
Additionally, juror Back, whom Voir Dire shows was working for KRMG News Radio, was caught going into the press room during one recess. This makes it pretty obvious that he was reporting on the trial every recess as he was a juror. (Tr. p. 177-178) This was discovered by someone, but Judge Graham and PD Wallace seem to have decided between themselves to keep this a secret. It looks like they both decided to appear to put a quick band-aid on this and shove it back into the dark. Their decision to put a whispered bench-hearing into the record about it instead of calling the needed mistrial, makes a mockery and a sham of justice and my representation by Public Defender. Mr. Wallace gave this teenager nothing but bad advice by telling me to be quiet and let him work when I suggested a polygraph ("No money has been budgeted for polygraph tests"), that I exhibit my lack of scars ("scars heal"), need of glasses ("not important") and my desire to testify in my own defense ("bad tactic") and my running ability after my motorcycle accident ("They have no evidence and "we're winning already"). Additionally the record shows that he filed not a single motion for discovery despite my attempts to get the blood analysed and the prints run due to the fact that identity was the sole issue at trial. He was the epitome of Ineffective Counsel, though no worse than an ignorant teenager too shy to stand up and shout "What did you people do with the killer's blood?"
Lastly, I request the Court order the Department of Corrections to allow me to take a brain-scanning Lie Detector test (fMRI) at my own expense. Oklahoma County Judges have set precedent for the use of high technology (caselaw #5, Slaughter v OK 2005 OK cr 6). It is only fair that, being denied the blood and fingerprints, I be allowed to exonerate myself with 21st century technology.
So prayed,
James Bauhaus
Cert. of Svc.
Under perjury penalty I swear that the above is true/ correct and that I sent 3 copies to Ct. Clerk, Tulsa County Courthouse, Civic Center Plaza, Tulsa, OK, 74103 on 11-29-06 by first class mail.
CASELAW
1. Youngblood v WV, 547 US (2006) "A Brady violation occurs when the government fails to disclose evidence materially favorable to the accused. See 373 US at 87. This court has held that the Brady duty extends to impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence, United States v Bagley, 473 US 667, 676 (1985), and Brady suppression occurs when the government fails to turn over even evidence that is "known only to police investigators and not to the prosecutor," Kyles, 514 US at 438. See id at 437 ("(T)he individual 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"). "Such evidence is material 'if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different,"' Strickler v Greene, 527 US 263, 280 (1999) (quoting Bagley, supra, at 682 (opinion of Blackmun, J.)), although a "showing of materiality does not require demonstration by a preponderance that disclosure of the suppressed evidence would have resulted ultimately in the defendant's acquittal," Kyles, 514 US at 434. The reversal of a conviction is required upon a "showing that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict." Id at 435.
2. House v Bell, 547 US (2006) p. 1, (A), 1., (a) To implement the general principle that "comity and finality 'must yield to the imperative of correcting a fundamentally un-just incarceration,"' Murray v Carrier, 477 US 478, 495, this court has ruled that prisoners asserting innocence as a gateway to defaulted claims must establish that, in light of new evidence, "it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Schlup, 513 US at 327. Several features of , Schlup's standard bear emphasis here. First, while the gateway claim requires "new, reliable evidence...not presented at trial," id, at 324, the habeas court must assess the likely impact of "'all the evidence"' on reasonable jurors, id at 329. Second, rather than requiring absolute certainty about guilt or innocence, a petitioner's burden at the gateway stage is to demonstrate that more likely than not, in light of new evidence, no reasonable juror would find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, this standard is "by no means equivalent to the standard of Jackson v Virginia, 443 US 307," which governs insufficient evidence claims, id at 330. Rather, because a Schlup claim involves evidence the trial jury did not have before it, the inquiry requires the federal court to assess how reasonable jurors would react to the overall, .newly supplemented record. See ibid. Contrary to the State's arguments, the standard of review in two
CASELAW
provisions of the Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 28 USC ss/ss 2244 (b) (2) (B) (ii) 2254(e) (2), is inapplicable here. In addition, because the standard does not address a “district court's independent judgement as to whether reasonable doubt exists," Schlup, supra, at 329. a ruling in House's favor does not require the showing of clear error as to the District Court's specific findings. It is with these principles in mind that the evidence developed in House's federal habeas proceedings should be evaluated. Pp. 16-20.
3. House v Bell, 547 US (2006), first paragraph. In certain exceptional cases involving a compelling claim of actual innocence, however, the state procedural default rule is not a bar to a federal habeas corpus petition. See Schlup v Delo, 513 US 298, 319-322 (1995).
4. House v Bell, 547 US (2006) p. 18, Schlup makes plain that the habeas court must consider "'all the evidence"', old and new, incriminating and exculpatory, without regard to whether it would necessarily be admitted under "rules of admissibility that would govern at trial."
5. Slaughter v OK, 2005 0k cr. 6, (Raising the issue that since Mr. Slaughter was legally permitted to access modern lie detection technology in Oklahoma, Equal Protection should as well allow me to access the most recent and reliable (so far 85% fMRI Brain-Scanning Lie-Detection technology at defendant's own expense, due to the fact that I was not permitted to access the killer's blood for analysis.)
6. Arizona v Youngblood, 109 S. Ct. 333, 342 (1988) Police allowed evidence to deteriorate beyond usefulness to defense, denying defendant fair trial. Citing State v Escalante, 153 AZ 55, 61, 734, p2d 597, 603 (app. 1986) "When identity is an issue at trial and police permit destruction of evidence that could eliminate defendant as the perpetrator, such loss is material ...and denial of Due Process."
7. California v Trombetta, 104 S. Ct. 252.8 (1984) Prosecution must maintain and provide all evidence material to guilt ...or innocence.
8. Napue v IL, 79 S. Ct. 1173 (1959) and Mooney v Holohan, 55, S. Ct. 340 (1935) Protection against perjury by state witness. "No perjury allowed in Due Process." (Mooney)
9. US v Marion, 92 S. Ct. 455 (1971) and US v Loxasco, 97 S. Ct. 2044 (1977) Protection against gov't hampering defense or preparation for trial.
10. Hilliard V Spalding 719 F2d l413 "semen... always significant."
11. Hilliard v Spalding, 719 F2d 1443 (1983) 1. Criminal Law 700, "Constitution
CASELAW
prohibits prosecution from suppressing material evidence in a criminal case." 2. 1171.1(1) The test for reversal based on prosecution's breach of its duty to disclose, even if defense Counsel fails to specifically request particular evidence, is whether the govt failed to disclose evidence which, in the context of the particular case, might have led jury to entertain a reasonable doubt about defendant's guilt". 4. Criminal Law 1163(1) Where a defendant who is charged with rape has not been permitted to test a sperm sample taken from victim, it is impossible for him to prove that he was actually prejudiced by govt's conduct, and therefore, courts assume that he was so prejudiced. 5. Constitutional Law 268(5) Individual's due process rights are violated if govt suppresses evidence which was so important that its absence prevented accused from receiving his constitutionally guaranteed fair trial. 6. Criminal Law 700 Habeas Corpus 90 If a sperm sample is taken from rape victim, and prosecution is in possession of or has control over the sample and is aware of its exculpatory nature, prosecution is constitutionally required to disclose the existence of the sample and to make it available to the defense, even if defense Counsel does not specifically request that the prosecution do so; therefore, where it was unclear whether prosecution ever asserted possession of or control over a sperm sample taken from rape victim, evidentiary hearing was required to determine whether the prosecution knew that a sperm sample had been taken and could be charged with the knowledge that the sample could be used to exculpate the petitioner.
12. US v Agurs, 427 US 97, 96 S. Ct. 2392, 49 L. Ed.2d 342 (1976)Evidence is "material" and reversal required, "if the omitted evidence creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist" 427 US at 112, 96 S. Ct. at 2402
13. Hilliard v Spalding, 719 F2d 1443 (1983) "The materiality of a sperm sample (and a blood sample) in a rape case goes well beyond the Agurs 'reasonable doubt' requirement because it can be used to prove the defendant's innocence to a certainty." (p.1445) And, "
14. Johnson v rogers 917 f2d 1283 (10 cir. 1990) "Justice delayed is justice denied".
15. Fed. R. civ. proc. 60 B 6 “Any other reason justifying relief ... from judgement." And "(rule 60 b) Not subject to successive petition rule due to Hamilton v. Newland, 374 f3d 822 (9th cir. 04),”
16 Brady V MD 373 US 83 1194 (can not knowingly waive rights not told of.)
CASES
Tulsa District Court: F-73-24
OK CT. of Criminal Appeals:
PC-96-1131
0-96-943
0-98-23
98-1369
M-99-335
0-99-1547
MA-00-507
MA-00-717
0-00-820
0-00-959
0-00-962
HC-00-962
McAlester District Court:
F-85-121
C-99-207
US Fed North Dist. Court:
96-cv-1033
96-cv-929-H
98-cv-725-K (M)
00-cv-543-K
97-cv-313
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
98-5054
00-5146
96-cv-5226
US Fed East Dist. Court:
unknown
96-cv-605
96-cv-447
US Supreme Court
unknown
unknown
Cleaveland County Dist Court: -unknown-
TULSA COUNTY. DIST. CT, OK
James Bauhaus ( F-73-24
v (
OK (
(
MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF ALL TULSA, PITTSBURG AND OSAGE
COUNTY JUDGES EXCEPT JUDGE CAROLINE WALL
Conflict of interest precludes an objective ruling on my Post-Conviction Relief effort from the above Judges due to a 35 year history of misconduct detailed in P-CR Bauhaus v OK, F-73-24 mailed to Tulsa's Court Clerk 11-29-06. Tulsa Judges' jobs are to protect Tulsa, and an objective ruling by them is impossible due to their fear that such would allow a lawsuit for misprison. Judge Wall is by reputation not part of the machine, or the conspiracy, hence I request her or a non-Tulsa, non-Pittsburg, non-Osage County Judge to rule on my PCR.
So Prayed,
James Bauhaus
CERT. OF SVC.
Under perjury penalty I sent 4 true/correct copies of this on 12-7-06 to Court Clerk, County Courthouse, Civic Center Plaza, Tulsa, OK 74103 by first class mail.
James Bauhaus
