July 15th, 2002
Dear Kay lee,
Well it's been a long time since I wrote to you. I know how busy you must be now that you are in the Bear State. I wish you the best in your
work.I'm now in rooms with Jeff Rowan, who will be going home within a few weeks. We are trying to get him ready for "The World". I'm sure he will do okay. He plans to go to Indiana to work with a friend.
Things are still the same hear at Hamilton CT. Since my back surgery for that spinal tumor, I seem to have recovered with only a few leg pains here and there. Still a lot of numbness in the lower parts of my body.
I'm enclosing a copy of a letter I wrote to the parole board yesterday. Jeff said that you might be able to help some way, either via internet or some other means. The Parole commission has so much discreation to do anything they want despite how good one's record may be. It is also an election year, which doesn't help.
Dear friend, thanks for all you are doing for us. Deep in our hearts we love you and appreciate everything. Please write when you can.
Sincerely,
Raymond McMahon
043080 AG 3207
Hamilton CI
11418 SW CR 249
Jasper, Florida 32052
July 14, 2002
The Honorable Chairman
Florida Parole and Probation Commission
2601 Blairstone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2450RE: Raymond McMahon
FDOC #043080Dear Mr. Chairman,
This September, 2002, I will again be interviewed by the Florida Parole and Probation Commission for a possible modification in my presumptive parole release date (PPRD). My PPRD is now set at 2093.
Just a few months ago, the national media reported that the Columbia School of Law had issued an objective report citing the State of Florida for sending more innocent defendants to death row than any other state. They also cited Hillsborough County, Florida as one of those jurisdictions which were most responsible for the poor performance of public defenders as well as prosecutors who were overly zealous in their prosecutorial duties. One may conclude from this report that, if the above jurisdictions were responsible for abuses in death row cases, certainly abuses occurred in those capital cases where defendants received only a life sentence. It is my belief that the case of State v McMahon, No. 73-1305, was such a case.
As my next parole interview date approaches, I wish the Commission to consider two facets of my case which may have a substantial effect on the modification of my next PPRD.
The first element to be considered is the fact that as an indigent defendant in 1973, the quality of defense provided by my public defender was so poor as to render the administration of justice a travesty.
The second element concerns the publication of a "politically" charged newspaper article which was published only a few days prior to my first parole interview. This article not only contained false information concerning certain elements of my crime, but also false information concerning my behavior while in prison. The publication of this article may have placed this Commission in a sensitive position whereby it was compelled to set an unreasonable PPRD to satisfy any public concern.
It has never been my belief that I should have been completely absolved of the two hit-and-run deaths which occurred on the night of July 14, 1973. I have always felt responsible and my heart has forever gone out to the victim's family as remorse has almost consumed me. Nevertheless, I'm also of the opinion that the "degree" of guilt which was forced upon me during the pre-trial phase of my case was unjust.
In the Summer of 1973, the public defender's office in Tampa was inundated with capital cases, and the need to "plead out" as many cases as possible became an obsession.
My public defender tried desperately to have me accept a plea agreement, saying that if I plead guilty to the indictment, he would arrange for me to spend the entire life sentence in a state hospital instead of Florida State Prison. Of course, this agreement was beyond the statutory scope of the public defender's office and the court.
When I refused the plea agreement, my public defender nevertheless certified me as a Mentally Disordered Sex Offender (MDSO) against my wishes. One must remember that neither of my victims were sexually abused, the hit-and-run was not a sexually motivated crime, nor was I ever arrested or convicted of a sexual crime. At a sanity hearing on October 19, 1973, I was, not withstanding, adjudicated an MDSO simply because I had stolen a woman's purse in 1956 at the age of sixteen.
A copy of record of Clinical Summary from the staff at Florida State Hospital (dated July 18, 1974) states:
"There has never been any indication during his (McMahon's) seven month stay at the hospital that the patient has a propensity to commit sexual offenses. From his previous record, we are unable to verify any sexual behavior which was against the law... It is our impression that this patient is not a menace to society because of a propensity to commit sexual offenses."
On October 10, 1973, I was brought before the court to enter a guilty plea. During the proceedings, however, I surprised the court by leaving open my option to receive the death penalty. On November 2, 1973, at my sentencing hearing, I rejected the life sentence offered and asked to be put to death by electrocution. This was my second attempt at suicide since my arrest.
After my arrest on July 22, 1973, I attempted to take my life in a jail cell. I was immediately placed in an isolated "strip cell" without clothing, a mattress, sheets or blanket. During the entire four months of my pre-trial incarceration, I slept on a rusted metal bed and without contact with other persons. In the summer months, the temperature inside the Morgan Street jail cell would reach close to 100 degrees. My attorney knew of this condition and used the fact to prompt my guilty plea. At that time, however, my only desire was to end my life and the best way I could do that was to ask the State to put me to death.
One only has to ask why the court accepted my guilty plea knowing that my request for the death penalty was irrational. A competent court would have nullified my plea and remanded my case to trial. Likewise, a competent defense attorney would have accepted the challenge to take this case to trial, knowing that the evidence did not warrant a capital conviction.
To the reasonable man, it is difficult for one to understand why I was ever charged with premeditated homicide, when the facts surrounding the event were so bizarre. At what point in a person's mind does one say, "Well, there are three children walking along the road. I think that I'll run them over and kill them"? What was the motive? What would be the driver's intent? These questions were never satisfactorily answered by the State.
I admitted that I was intoxicated. The lighting on the street that night was dim and there were no sidewalks for the children to walk on. Eye witness depositions state that I had been driving erratically around the block for over five minutes before the children began to walk on the street. The driver, therefore, could not have been stalking the victims.
If one intended to kill three children just because they were there, then certainly one should suffer the ultimate punishment. But this assumption is unreasonable given the circumstances. If the intent was to kidnap or commit robbery, why would one first run down his victims? Granted, the driver was foolish enough to think that he could save one of his victims by attempting to take her to a local hospital (unfortunately the victim had expired at the time of the collision). After all, the driver was a registered emergency medical technician who worked for a local ambulance company, and whose job it was to save lives (and he did save many lives). He would not intentionally revert to becoming a killer.
It is also my hope that the Commission will look again at a Tampa Tribune article which may have influenced the decision of the Commission to set such an unreasonable PPRD.
The article in question was one that was published on November 2, 1997 and was entitled, "No Parole for the Dead". It was written by columnist Daniel Ruth, a reported who first covered the case in 1973. In that article, the Tribune published several false allegations in regard to the 1973 homicide and of my conduct while in prison. Not only were these allegations false, but Daniel Ruth knew they were false, yet he published them as mere "opinion". Understandably, the purpose of the article was to influence the Parole Commission.
In 1998, I filed a libel action in Hillsborough County Circuit Court (McMahon v Tribune, et al, Case No. 98-863) asking the court only for an order compelling the Tribune to publish a retraction. After a lengthy discovery phase in the case, documents were filed by both parties where my claims were supported. A hearing was quickly set to rule upon the Tribune's motion to dismiss and, as expected, my case was dismissed on the grounds that I was "libel proof" and could not even obtain injunctive relief.
I would hope that the Commission, who has access to the record and my Department of Corrections file, would review the above facts and objectively consider a reasonable modification in my PPRD. All of the above facts can be verified in my court records and parole records, and I would welcome their review.
Sincerely,
Raymond A. McMahon, 043080, AG1111
Hamilton Correctional Institution
11419 S.W. CR 249
Jasper, Florida 32052
Back to Hamilton Prison Index Main Index All the Way Home