POLICE MISCONDUCT

Davis was held as a material witness and interrogated at length by Police. Court records indicate that at no point in over five (5) hours of interrogation was Davis informed of his fundamental right to have a parent present during questioning. In 1978 there was no provision in the Alabama Law Code for "material witness". Police took a statement from Davis wherein he denied any involvement in the crime. He was then presented with a typed paper for his signature, he was told this was his statement. Davis read it and refused to sign because it contained statements he had not made. He was told by police that he would "fry in the electric chair", if he did not sign the statement. Davis was then publicly humiliated when he was stripped of his underwear in front of Judge Teel, the Juvenile Judge, and all law enforcement officers present. He was then taken to the jail and placed in a cell. [To the Top]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

The first instance of prosecutorial misconduct occurred during Davis' first appearance in Juvenile Court. A witness appeared on behalf of the state. The witness told the Court that he and a friend had been on a week long drinking spree at a location called the Covered Bridge on the day the victim was murdered. He was at the bridge tending to his friend who was passed out drunk. In the course of events, the witness took a Kleenex and a paper towel down to the creek to use the bathroom. Having finished, the witness stated he saw a boy pass by on a motorcycle and return a few minutes later. The witness told the Court that he observed the boy washing blood off of his hands and that the boy used the paper towel he had left at the creek earlier. The witness was asked if he could identify the motorcycle, if he was shown a photo of it. He replied that he could not. The witness then identified Davis in open court as the person he saw at the bridge. Law enforcement used no police line-up and no photo spread in this case. The victim’s billfold was found in the area of the Covered Bridge. It was not until seventeen years later that Davis’ present attorneys were allowed to inspect and copy law enforcement files for the first time. Unknown to them, the Alabama Attorney General’s office removed certain pages from the file prior to the review of Davis' attorneys. Only due to a slip-up in the Attorney General’s office did it become known that Davis' attorneys had not seen the entire file. Only days prior to an evidentiary hearing in the case, did Davis' attorneys receive additional pages from the file. The State had withheld this important information for 17 years. Never intended to be seen This witness’s initial description did not match the description of Davis. This witness was initially a suspect in this case, who later became the States key witness and stood witness against Davis. What is even more shocking! This witness was the former client of Tom Radney, one of the Special Prosecutors! - a clear conflict of interest This witness was a twice convicted rapist! This witness, in one of his prior cases, states that both times he committed those crimes he was under the influence of alcohol! At no point did special prosecutor, Tom Radney, inform the Court or defense that his witness was a former client. The withholding of this information is misconduct of the highest degree! This information, had it been known at the time, would have destroyed this witness’s credibility. Prior to trial Davis’ attorneys filed a motion requesting that prosecution provide any and all criminal records of any of the witnesses the state planned to call. The trial court denied that motion! The Alabama Appellant Court, in its denial of relief, stated that Davis had not shown that the State suppressed this information! The Court stated that another witness at trial backed up this witness's testimony, and this information would not have changed the outcome of the trial. The witness referred to by the Court was a JAIL HOUSE SNITCH!!! [To the Top]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

      JAILHOUSE SNITCH

Another witness in this case, who also had prior convictions, was used as a "jailhouse snitch". It has been suggested that the jailhouse snitch was be offered promise of a lesser sentence if he was able to elicit information from Davis. In this case the snitch was used twice. The first time he was used was to deny Davis Youthful Offender (Y/O) status. This status would have allowed Davis to be treated as a juvenile despite the Juvenile Judge’s action of certifying him to adult status. Circuit judge Sharbutt, who presided over the Y/O hearing stated that in his opinion Y/O status was never intended for a person accused of a capital crime. The Judge then denied Y/O status by stating that, since Davis had "confessed to the crime", he was denying him Y/O status. Davis' attorneys protested and asked the Court to produce such evidence. The Court replied that it had made an independent investigation into the matter. Davis was denied his due process rights to confront his accuser by denial of Y/O status based on innocence or guilt. Innocence or guilt should not be a factor in granting or denying Y/O status. The best interest of the child is supposed to be considered and at no point in this entire case has the best interest of Davis been a deciding factor! The second time the jailhouse snitch was used was when he appeared at the trial. At trial the jury heard the testimony of the jailhouse snitch, who gave a detailed account of the States case against Davis, linking him to every aspect, every shred of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution.   SEVENTEEN YEARS LATER In Court the jailhouse snitch told Davis' present attorneys and the Court that an officer who worked at the center put him up to approaching Davis. He states that the officer told him to, "see what he could get out of Davis". The record indicates that the officer could give the inmates trustee status, the snitch gained this status, thus allowing him more privileges. The officer, who did not testify, gave a different account of this story in a Deposition. He stated that the snitch came to him telling him that Davis wanted to speak with him. The officer stated that at midnight he went to Davis' cell and had a conversation with Davis. He stated that Davis told him he was innocent of the crime and asked if his uncle, who Davis was told was a Senator, could help him. The officer stated that he told Davis if he was not guilty, he would not be asking about the uncle. The officer states that at that point Davis was alleged to have confessed! There are several aspects concerning this that do not support the theory that Davis confessed. In reviewing statements of both the snitch and the officer, it is clear that they were working together. To believe the officer’s account one would have to question why he never told Davis that he did not have such an uncle. One would have to question, after telling the snitch to leave Davis alone because Davis might believe him and approach him, why did he go to Davis' cell at Midnight! In viewing the jailhouse snitch’s account that the officer was pressuring him repeatedly (10-15 times), it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the snitch fabricated claims of a confession in order to gain the privileges already outlined! Another important factor worth noting is that nowhere in either the snitch’s statement or the officers is there any mention that Davis confessed to going to the bridge to wash his hands, therefore, one could also question where the jailhouse snitch learned that the State's case relied heavily on placing Davis at the bridge with the twice convicted rapist, (State's witness) and where the victim’s billfold was found! Over the years numerous cases involving such confessions have shown that when we hear of such cases we have a duty to investigate. In Illinois there have been a number of convictions based on jailhouse confessions, 13 of these have since been proven innocent beyond reasonable doubt. Such is the case of Davis The Alabama Appellant Court dismissed this claim by siding with the officer, without a second look. Will the Federal Courts do the same? [To the Top]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      COACHED TESTIMONY

Davis remained in prison for almost two years before his case went to trial. Prior to trial the twice convicted rapist testified on three different occasions. The first time was at Davis' first hearing, the second time was at a second detention hearing and the third was at Davis' juvenile transfer hearing at which the judge transferred the case to adult court. The record indicates that at no point prior to trial did the D.A.’s office ever interview this witness. In fact, there is evidence in the record that the witness did not speak to anyone in the D.A.’s office prior to the trial! At Davis' juvenile transfer hearing the witness was asked if he had spoken to anyone at the D.A.’s office and he stated he had not. He stated that he had only spoken to the special prosecutor Tom Radney, who we now know was his prior attorney. The prosecutions case relied heavily on this witness’s description of the person he allegedly saw at the bridge matching the description of Davis. The examination of this witness was conducted entirely by the special prosecutors - his former attorneys. One of the pages that the Attorney General’s office removed from the file prior to review by Davis' attorneys and turned up 17 years later, shows that this witness first told law enforcement that the person he saw was wearing a "blue" helmet. Upon learning that the actual color of Davis' helmet was "gold", law enforcement went as far as scratching out the word "blue" and wrote "gold" above it! see copy Coaching of Motorcycle and Helmet Details At Davis' first hearing the examination of this witness was conducted by Mitch Gavin, the special prosecutor who was not the witness's former attorney. At no point in the testimony did the witness state the color of the motorcycle or helmet belonging to Davis. The day following this testimony law enforcement took the witness’s formal statement. At no point in the statement did the witness state the color of the motorcycle or helmet of Davis. During testimony at Davis' second detention hearing, the witness was once again examined by Mitch Gavin, the special prosecutor who was not his former attorney, and once again the witness did not indicate the color of the motorcycle or helmet of Davis. At Davis' juvenile transfer hearing the witness who was examined by Tom Radney, his former attorney. The witness now states that the color of the motorcycle was gold and that the color of the helmet was gold! At this time Davis' attorneys were unaware that the witness had first told law enforcement that the person he allegedly saw was wearing a blue helmet. see copy Without this knowledge Davis' attorneys could not conduct proper cross examination of the witness. The withholding of this information was deliberate! At Davis' trial the witness, who could not identify Davis' motorcycle five days after allegedly seeing it, came forward with a description that a blind man could have found. Davis' motorcycle was missing a decal from the side of it. The witness who stated he saw no damage to the motorcycle at the first hearing, suddenly recalls two years later for the first time that the motorcycle he saw was missing a decal! Thus matching the description the prosecution had presented to the jury concerning Davis' motorcycle! More Coached Testimony “T-SHIRT” Law enforcement went to the home of Davis' grandmother and confiscated the brown T-shirt Davis was wearing that day. The T-shirt was sent to the laboratory for testing. When Davis was arrested he was wearing a "light tan T-shirt, with writing on it”. The T-shirt Davis wore in the mugshot was not the T-shirt he wore when allegedly seen by the witness. During testimony at Davis' first hearing the State's witness, a twice convicted rapist, stated that the person he allegedly saw was wearing a “colored” T-shirt. In his formal statement taken the day after this testimony he states that the color of the shirt that the person he allegedly saw was “brown”, matching the color of the shirt that law enforcement confiscated. At Davis' juvenile transfer hearing, at which time the lab had conducted its testing on the T-shirt, it was revealed that the T-shirt did not have a trace of blood on it. The state knew that due to the amount of blood at the crime scene, the perpetrator would have been covered in blood. The state introduced a new theory! Maybe they got the wrong T-shirt, if so, they needed a witness who could lay the groundwork for this new theory. The twice convicted rapist, being examined by Tom Radney, his former attorney, changed his description of the T-shirt from "brown" to "yellow with writing on it". At Davis' trial, the prosecution did some fine tuning on this portion of testimony. To help ensure that the jury would not question the witness’s description, the twice convicted rapist refines his description to precisely match the description that the jury would see with their own eyes. The MUG SHOT! The witness told the jury that the shirt was “a light tan T-shirt, with writing on it"! At the time he found the body, the T-shirt Davis was wearing had NO writing on it. At Davis' trial nobody had any reason not to believe this witness. Nobody had been made aware of the true facts surrounding this witness and the jury should have been made aware of these facts in order to render its verdict. Davis' attorneys also, should have been made aware of these facts. The actions of the prosecution in coaching a witness, withholding of evidence that could have been used to discredit and impeach a witness’s testimony is a fundamental right that must be ensured by society, especially when a person's life is at stake. [To the Top]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

      DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF EVIDENCE

Fingerprint: The victim’s billfold that was found in the location of the Covered bridge contained fingerprints that did not match Davis. At no point were the fingerprints on the billfold compared to anyone else. When lab experts were questioned concerning this, they stated that they had not been asked to compare the prints to any other person other than Davis A can of Brunswick stew was found next to the victim and contained a fingerprint, this too was only compared to Davis and once again it did not match his prints and once again the lab was not requested to compare it to any other person. No fingerprint dusting was conducted at the crime scene despite the fact that the cash drawer was open, with coins spilled onto the floor as if they were raked from the till. Tests that would have cleared Davis were not done or if they were, they were not reported. There was no DNA test done. Hair analysis was requested, see copy and samples were received, see copy but said not to have been done or if it was done it did not implicate Davis and therefore, not reported. Fingerprints on the murder weapon, a knife, did not match those of Davis and were not compared to any other person.  Forensic evidence: At the time that the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences (ADFS) was receiving and conducting their examinations, Special Prosecutor Tom Radney, who was the former attorney of the convicted rapist was in charge of the case. A note contained in the law enforcement file states that all evidence was available to Radney.see copy In a Deposition of the Chief examiner of the ADFS taken by Davis' present attorneys, the examiner states that it has always been routine for the prosecution to request any additional testing of evidence as required. In Davis' case the prosecution did not make any request for additional testing. A field note in the ADFS files describes the murder scene as “victim found laying face down, naked, in pool of blood, with multiple stab wounds to the back, pubic hair stuck in blood on floor.” see copy The record indicates that during autopsy no pubic combings were done by the ADFS. Nowhere in the record is there any evidence that the “pubic hair stuck in blood” at crime scene was collected by law enforcement. What is suspect is that 112 days after Davis’ arrest, by Court Order! Law enforcement took head hair and pubic hair samples see copy from Davis and these samples are recorded in the ADFS files requesting for comparison to be conducted!! see copy Nowhere in the files are these results listed. During autopsy a swab taken from the victim’s rectum is stated to have tested positive for semen and sperm. At no point was this swab blood-typed. Blood-typing of the swab would have excluded Davis as the donor of the semen. No additional testing was requested by the prosecution. The swab was destroyed by the ADFS immediately! At the time of Davis' arrest, law enforcement seized his undershorts. The undershorts were sent to the ADFS. According to the ADFS the undershorts contained a stain that was an alleged mixture of semen, fecal matter and epithelial cells. At no point was this mixture blood typed. Blood—typing of it could have excluded the victim as the donor of the cells. No additional testing was requested by the prosecution. The stain was destroyed immediately by the ADFS! Davis' present attorneys had the ADFS files reviewed by an independent expert. The expert stated that the test used by the ADFS for identification of semen was deemed to be unreliable by labs across the country prior to Davis' trial! The expert also stated that the method used for the identification of fecal matter was suspect. Davis' jeans and shoes contained blood splatters consistent with his explanation of finding the victim. As previously stated, his T-shirt contained no blood whatsoever!  Evidence from Bridge: In a statement obtained from the law enforcement file an officer found a footprint at the creek, in the location where the twice convicted rapist (the State's witness) stated he saw Davis. The officer states that he covered the footprint with a rag to preserve it. At no other place in Davis' case is the footprint mentioned. Law enforcement had Davis' shoes to compare to the footprint. One might conclude that comparisons were done, once again, when these did not fit the states case, they were not reported. Law enforcement gave testimony that motorcycle tracks were found near the victim’s billfold. We are told no plaster casts of the tracks were taken to compare them to Davis' motorcycle and no effort was made to preserve the tracks. Or one might conclude, once again, that casts were done, but did not match and therefore, were not reported. [To the Top]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL

Davis' trial attorneys did little or no investigation on his behalf. The attorneys: failed to investigate the background of witnesses; failed to challenge the forensic evidence; failed to investigate the jailhouse confession; failed to call witnesses on Davis’ behalf; The only witness they called to testify in support of Davis was his mother. At sentencing the attorneys did not call any witnesses at all and did not present any evidence at sentencing in support of Davis. failed to ensure that the record of Davis' trial was complete. The Court Reporter failed to record and transcribe the opening and closing statements; The prosecutorial misconduct that occurred during opening and closing arguments was not completely recorded by the court reporter and the reporter has steadfastly refused to transcribe his notes regarding this. When a Federal Judge ordered the reporter to transcribe the notes, which had become part of the record as evidence, the reporters response was that the notes have now been lost! failed to raise meritorious claims on Davis' behalf and due to their ineffectiveness Davis' present attorneys face procedural barment of the very claims that could save Davis' life.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

      INTERNATIONAL TREATY VIOLATIONS

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): "Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age ..." (Article 6(5)) Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC): "Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age..." (Article 37(a)) American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR): "Capital punishment shall not be imposed upon persons who, at the time the crime was committed, were under 18 years of age..." (Article 4(5)) In the past decade only six countries are known to execute children. These are Yemen, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. The United States joins hands with these countries with its repeated violation of executing those who were children at the time of the crime. Davis has written a piece on this which is well worth reading. see "Promises" Since 1973, more than 107 prisoners have been released from death row in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. Some had come close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defense representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt. source: Amnesty International - 9. Execution of the Innocent [To the Top]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      INDICTMENT