I am praying that through this page I can finally get the attention of someone who can bring an end to the nightmare my family is enduring. I have been made aware that there are possible negative consequences in making my son's case public; however, we are at our wit's end and feel we must look to any avenue of support and assistance. We have attempted to operate within the system but in more than five long years the system has done nothing but hinder us from developing and exposing the truth in this case.
My son is on death row in Alabama. I am aware that this in itself is not a unique situation, nor is it unusual that someone accused of a crime would claim to be innocent. What I find particularly appalling is that no one of consequence will even examine the newly found evidence. This evidence, I must add, is both credible and points to glaringly obvious mishandling at every stage of the investigation and trying of my son. Neither family nor anyone who really knew Dave has ever doubted his innocence and we have, as best as we have been able, initiated an investigation and possess credible evidence to support our position.
It would have been difficult to imagine anything worse than the one-sided trial we endured but it pales in comparison to the appeals process and the lengths the courts will go to in order to sustain this obviously suspect conviction. It appears to me that in cases where factual dispute still remains an issue into appeal, the courts are less likely to grant relief. To me, and others who share my social awareness, this is unconscionable. If even a remote possibility exists that a person sentenced to die may in truth be innocent, it is the sworn responsibility of the higher courts to make every available effort to fairly examine all of the facts (new as well as those presented at trial). We as a humane, civilized society must demand and settle for nothing less.
My son is a great father to two very well raised and adjusted children. Good people can do bad things, granted, but Dave is not a cold-blooded killer. We have a small network of folks who have independently examined this case and believe wholly in Dave's innocence. They are committed and have offered to enlist their services in the preparation of the case. What we are truly lacking are the resources needed in order to adequately investigate and prepare known information for admissibility and consideration in the courts. We have access to the evidence but in order to avoid any possible contamination or compromising of the new (and convincing) facts, we must be extremely careful. Through this experience we have learned how easily facts can be manipulated, and we need people highly qualified in a case of this extreme nature to preserve the truth and avoid any further misrepresentation of what actually happened. This webpage is not designed to tell our story and attempt to sway public opinion. At this point the courts are the only forum where justice can be sought. As desperately as we'd like to expose the truth of all this to the world, we are for all meaningful purposes acting without the benefit of counsel, and until such time as qualified representation has been able to develop the issues involved, it is only that representation which we seek.
Our primary objective here is to access members of the legal community. The best scenario would be to find a law firm in a position (and possessing the experience and resources) to prepare and present our case pro bono. We feel as though a firm would lend a measure of organization to our endeavors as they would be accustomed to working together. We have made attempts to bring our case to the attention of any groups we could find that we felt might either share our experience or that recruits pro bono representation in cases such as this. It appears the bottom line is that there are very few advocates willing to involve themselves in an endeavor of this magnitude, some for moral reasons I suppose but more because the resources that must be committed to properly defend a case that statistically ends in one's client being executed are tremendous. At any rate, as an alternative we could put it together with the donation of individual legal services to work in cooperation with those already committed. We need highly qualified investigative people and forensic experts in particular, but all areas need development in order to expose the truth. What we have is credible and powerfully compelling. It must be investigated!!! We can't afford to wait, as sympathetic as we are to the reality of so many others who need help as badly as we do. The longer it takes to institute a legitimate investigation into our allegations, the greater the probability that the truth will be further compromised.
Below are the issues of the case as presented in our writ of cert. to the Alabama Supreme Court in direct appeal (which was denied). We are now awaiting a decision on our petition in that court for reconsideration. Barring the unlikely event that the court will reverse its own ruling, we feel we will soon be in post conviction. This will be our first and last meaningful opportunity to raise these new issues during the state habeous, and therefore it is imperative we develop and raise every issue which exposes the miscarriage of justice in this case. As mentioned earlier, time is not our friend in this case as time alone could compromise the integrity of our entire case. Time has already cost us much and these issues must be preserved.
Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama (formerly Capital Representation Center of Ala.) is aware of the issues in the record and it is thanks only to them that we have preserved what we have on appeal. They are in the position of recruiting pro bono attorneys for death cases in Alabama, but they have only a handful of attorneys and about 170 cases to fight for justice in. We are fortunate to have meager resources which enable us to make an effort on our own, and quite frankly we cannot wait our turn on a long list of desperate situations in which each case a person's very life is at stake. The witnesses and facts in this case are far too critical to leave to chance. We can only pray that the right person will hear our cries of desperation. At the end of our webpage we will provide all relevant contact information. Our supporters, my family, and I personally thank you from our hearts for taking the time to read our plea.
Imagine that you represent law enforcement in Geneva County (Alabama) and you are investigating a murder. You learn that on the evening the murder likely occurred, your colleagues stopped a vehicle not far from the murder, but let the driver go. You discover that although the driver gave an alias, his name was James Linder and he resides in Florida. You find that the truck belonged not to him but to a James Fletcher also in Florida. You go to Florida to interview the two men. The men have already spoken collaboratively prior to interview. Mr. Linder claims that the murder was not committed by him but by a William Dave Scott. Mr.Fletcher initially denies any knowledge of the case but then also implicates Mr.Scott. Both say the murder was committed at the behest of a Jesse Richburg. There are no witnesses to the murder nor physical evidence from the scene implicating anyone. All you have are the somewhat conflicting stories of Linder and Fletcher (indeed these stories changed progressively at different stages, apparently to accommodate the ever-changing needs of the prosecution).
You then find that a stolen car from Geneva County around the time of the murder bears a fingerprint that matches Mr.Scott's and think you have found your killer. But when the time comes to try the case you realize you have a problem. The only real evidence you have that he was involved in the killing is the word of two accomplices to the crime who have saved themselves from the electric chair and you know that neither is reliable nor legally sufficient.
It is apparent that at this point (whether intentionally or not), the Geneva County authorities began to cut corners. Although the murder and the theft were dissimilar in nearly every respect, they were tried together so that Mr.Scott could be placed in Geneva County. Although the fingerprint was the only evidence tying Mr.Scott to the theft of the car, the state made no effort to establish a chain of custody to authenticate either the latent or the known prints and thus prove they were what they were alleged to be. To establish pecuniary gain, the state introduced evidence that Mr. Scott had been promised a chance at future murders, although evidence varied completely from the indictment and was highly inflammatory. To prove burglary, it had its main witness (James Linder) read parts directly from his police statement to the jury when it appeared he was not going to testify as the prosecution had hoped (It should be noted that the testimony sought was Mr. Scott's alleged reciting of the events of the murder and Mr. Linder couldn't remember what he had stated originally).
To tie the whole case together in both guilt and sentencing phases, the prosecution relied on the testimony of its investigator, Jimmy Hand (who also happened to be the nephew of the deceased). The problem with Mr. Hand's testimony was that it was comprised entirely of hearsay. Mr. Hand testified at length to remarks allegedly made by the victim, accomplice Jesse Richburg, and the victim's ex-wife Rhonda Bohannon, although no showing of availability was made. (Again, it is important to note that these witnesses were available but apparently didn't offer information favorable to the prosecution's case) Appellant was thus unable to cross examine those with the most damaging testimony against him.
Sad to say, the prosecution appeared to have very little regard for the rules of evidence in this case. They illicited voice identification of Mr. Scott without any foundation. They introduced evidence of weapons found in the victim's home that had no relevance to the case. They brought out that Mr. Scott used cocaine to show that he was an immoral person. When it came right down to it, the state did not prove its case nor corroborate what the accomplices had to say with legal evidence. The trial court then compounded the problem when it refused some of the corroboration instructions sought by the defense, and allowed a conviction on the stories of two men who clearly needed to save themselves.
J. W. Griffin, a federal informant against several suspects was found dead in his home on July 11, 1993. The evening before, the Geneva County police had questioned a man not far from Mr. Griffin's home who had given them the name "Al Faulk" but was actually James Linder. The man produced no identification and did not tell a coherent story. The police let him go, telling him to move on but not following him out of town.
The police later found in investigating the case that Mr. Linder was using an alias, had been in Geneva County before, and had asked a garage owner to tow the truck he had been seen in on July 10th which was now burned. The truck belonged to James Fletcher. When interviewed, Mr. Fletcher initially denied any knowledge of the situation but then admitted that he had supplied the truck as well as a gun and money to Mr. Linder and William David Scott, who worked under him in an illegal drug business. Mr. Linder, who knew he was wanted for murder, stated that he and Mr. Scott had made several trips to Geneva County and that on the last, Mr. Scott killed J.W. Griffin. Mr. Fletcher stated that he had procured Mr. Scott to commit this murder for a man named Jesse Richburg, or "Shot". A Geneva County investigator, Jimmy Hand, testified that "Shot" was one of the men Mr. Griffin had been informing against.
Dave Scott did not testify during the guilt phase but did take the stand before the jury at sentencing. He testified that he thought he had been set up. He explained that he believed he was going to collect a drug debt for Mr. Fletcher as he had done before. Mr. Griffin was not at home the first few times he tried. He found him home on the night of July 10th and was told by Mr. Griffin (or who he assumed to be Mr. Griffin, having never met him), that the debt had been taken care of . Mr. Scott was to meet Mr. Linder after collecting the debt but found that Linder had abandoned him after being surrounded by police officers. He walked for a while and then purloined a car from someone named Rita Boyette. He took the car as far as Panama City and then wired for money for a bus ride home to Ocklawaha, Florida. (Note: this account is supported entirely by the evidence.)
Sometime after his return, Scott told his friend Kay Klapper that he was afraid he was going to get in trouble because someone had been murdered. Linder also talked to Klapper, and told her that "We've done the job and it was a dirty one." Ms. Klapper corrected the district attorney when he suggested that Mr. Scott had intimated to her that he had been involved in the killing.
Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Linder got very sweet deals for their testimony. Fletcher, who acknowledged being the principle player in this crime, was not prosecuted by either state or federal authorities. He admitted that he lied when the police first approached him and again in the grand jury (in fact Mr. Fletcher admitted to lying every time he was questioned prior to testifying at Mr. Scott s trial). He acknowledged a prior conviction for aggravated assault (this involved Mr. Fletcher also murdering a woman and wounding several others). By contrast, Mr. Scott had never been charged with a crime of violence and had only a prior stolen property conviction.
James Linder, whom the authorities had questioned in the county on the night of the crime, pled guilty in federal court, and received a downward departure on his sentence for incriminating Dave Scott. He was sentenced to serve 17 years in federal prison (Linder was later given a further deduction in sentence for testifying against Mr. Richburg and now has only 9 years). Both Linder and Fletcher could have been tried and convicted of capital murder based on their own testimony alone (both could also have received death sentences but for their cooperation).
The jurors convicted Dave Scott of capital murder and theft based on the testimony of the two accomplices and considerable inadmissible evidence. At the penalty phase, they voted unanimously to sentence him to life in prison without the possibility of parole (this verdict was decided with only 10 minutes deliberation). The state's case for death depended on inadmissible hearsay about why Jesse Richburg would want Mr. Griffin dead, a presentence report in which Mr. Scott was fatuously described as a "hit man", and improper argument. The trial court rejected the jury verdict and sentenced Dave Scott to death by electrocution.
The preceding recitation is taken from actual court records omitting only the page reference where the information cited is found in the record, and adding parenthesized text for clarification. It is our contention that many of these facts cited are distorted by false testimony and manipulation of the truth; in many cases by the prosecution in an effort to fabricate a case against Dave. Dave rebuffed offers to testify falsely against Mr. Richburg and the indication now is that the conviction against Dave was facilitated to make a conviction against Mr. Richburg possible, given the lack of credible evidence in this case. Dave was tried in the county where the victim had been a lifelong resident and had many family ties, and Mr. Richburg was tried in federal court. As promised we do have credible evidence to support our allegations. During Mr. Richburg's two trials ( the first one ending with the jury unable to agree on his guilt), many facts came out which Dave Scott's defense never investigated. There has never been a legitimate investigation in this case. This is a case that cries out for justice. It is a case that should never have been tried, but was, apparently because Dave was the most convenient scapegoat, and those who truly should have been the target of the investigation are powerful and prominent in that area.
Alabama's system for providing representation in these cases is appalling. Prosecutors have bottomless coffers and unlimited resources at their disposal. Also it appears that having the authority to threaten folks with unwarranted prison time unless they testify favorably (indeed the deals Linder and Fletcher received were dependent on Dave being convicted) is a valuable asset in prosecuting weak cases. In contrast the defense recieves merely a few hundred dollars to mount an entire defense against this. We have the evidence, we need to even the playing field.
To contact the Defense project:
Sharron Scott
6501 15th Street North
St. Petersburg, Fla. 33702
(727) 528-4264
or email at : iidp@angelfire.com
For those wishing to write Dave directly (penpal and friendship correspondence only):
Dave Scott AIS# Z-569
Holman 37, 7U5
Atmore, Al. 36503
USA
LINKS
Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (CUADP)
Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty (CCADP)
Oklahoma Coalition to abolish the Death Penalty (OCADP)
![[ACLU Execution Watch Counter]](http://www.aclu.org/graphics/dpcounter.gif)