Richter v. Hickman, 578 F.3d 944, 952-53 (9th
Cir. 2009) (en banc) (finding ineffective assistance of counsel
where counsel failed to investigate and present at trial critical
expert testimony), cert. granted sub nom. Harrington v. Richter,
130 S.Ct. 1506 (2010)
A. Necessity of Services
[1] Upon a timely request by an indigent defendant, "[t]he
statute requires the district judge to authorize [expert] defense
services . . . in circumstances in which a reasonable attorney would engage such services for a client having the independent
financial means to pay for them." United States v. Bass,
477 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1973). The court's inquiry into the necessity of services must be specific to the facts of the
particular case. See, e.g., United States v. Armstrong, 621
F.2d 951, 956 (9th Cir. 1980).
Pre-Trial Transcript of 12.04.2002 Case CR-02-350(A)-AHM U.S. -v- Killercop.
Page 18, Lines 13-25
Judge A. Howard Matz:
"I don’t think, as I understand the case, and as I understand these charges that have been filed against Killercop that the mechanics, the technology, the capacity in a sophisticated way to use computers is really much of an issue in this case.
I don’t think that’s what the trial is likely to focus on at all. So I think you could have somebody who has never see a computer but is a d(sic) fine lawyer and a dedicated and hard working one do a perfectly competent, maybe absolutely bank-up job for this defendant. That’s my view."
WELL THAT'S DANDY THEN!! SO LONG AS DUE PROCESS ENTITLES KILLERCOP TO YOUR "VIEW," AS A LEGAL DEFENSE, IN A COMPLEX COMPUTER CASE
LETS ASK SOME OF HIS FRIENDS AND BUDDIES IF THEY FEEL, IN THEIR VIEW, WOULD THEY ACCEPT THAT AS DUE PROCESS, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT GETS UNLIMITED EXPERTS?
Prof. John C. Coffee, Ronald J. Nessim, Howard Matz , Robert S. Fink and Michael J. Madigan
BY THE WAY, I NEVER FOUND THAT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH, IN HERE ARE YA'LL STACKING THE DECK OR YA JUST DON'T CARE WHO KNOWS ANYMORE?
BUT EVEN A FIRST YEAR LAW STUDENT OF HARVARD KNOWS YOU WOULD BE STUPID TO COVERUP A CRIME.
JUST FOR THE RECORD YOU WERE CERTAINLY STUPID ENOUGH TO BELIEVE YOU COULD FORCE ANOTHER MAN ON ME, BASED ONLY ON "CAUSE I SAY SO," AS YOUR JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY, INSTEAD OF A LAW, WHEN IT WAS DEMANDED OF YOU. YOU NEVER OFFERED ANYTHING THAT EVEN LOOKED LIKE A LAW. IN FACT, YOU DIDN'T EVEN OFFER A NOVEL THEORY FOR ANY AUTHORITY TO FORCE THIS MAN ON ME. BUT I SEE YOUR GOOD FRIEND, LORD ALEX KOZINSKI, TOOK THE OPPOSITE APPROACH.
Richter v. Hickman, No. 06-15614 (8-10-09)(en banc). In an en banc decision, the 9th (Reinhardt writing) granted petition's writ for IAC. The case turned on circumstantial and forensic evidence. Despite this, defense counsel failed to conduct any forensic investigation.
He decided on a defense without ...without consulting any experts. If he had, expert testimony would have helped support his version of the events, and would have enabled defense counsel to cross effectively, and present his own experts and evidence.
Can you help? To overturn this? Or are you just another Public Pretender From The Central District Of California? I really don't trust them.
OUTSIDE IT'S AMERICA
"what would be the capacity of law enforcement
and of the courts to SUPRESS this kind of SPEECH?" -Judge A. Howard Matz, PRE-TRIAL HEARING OF KILLERCOP.COM
A QUESTION FOR AMERICA:
Is "pretty good" pretty much like "pretty clear?" Because I'm "pretty sure" it is not. I know, it's complex. But then again, I'm officially nutzzzzzz, until certified (.pdf) un-nutzzzzzz, in a competent court of the law. So I am waiting on the law. It sure is not speedy...but it is baffled.
I'm all a Twitter waiting to see your reaction, to my reaction, to your Treatment and the promised Restoration. You'll just die when you see what I have in store for everyone involved in the story in 2010.
 
Look, you know you have to look, there!! ABOVE!!
It's "another person" and "the person of another," person.
STILL BAFFFLED?
Then read the plan, promptly!! A man's life, freedom and liberty are at stake!!! And it's probably a prudent thing to do, but don't speak about it!
In fact, don't even think about it, especially the cowards and babies! But always remember, children, evil only triumphs when good men or women do nothing.
THE END.
|
HOW ABOUT A PICTURE OF ONE THEN?
Judge Howard Matz Denies Killercop
Any Expert Witnesses In A "Complex Computer Case" Nada. Gar nichts. Rien du tout. Bupkes. Zero, Zilch! Zip!
Under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1),
“[c]ounsel for a person who is financially unable to obtain . . .
expert . . . services necessary for adequate representation may
request them.” After conducting an inquiry in an ex parte proceeding,
if the court finds “that the services are necessary and
that the person is financially unable to obtain them, the court
. . . shall authorize counsel to obtain the services.”
[1] Upon a timely request by an indigent defendant, “[t]he
statute requires the district judge to authorize [expert] defense
services . . . in circumstances in which a reasonable attorney
would engage such services for a client having the independent
financial means to pay for them.” United States v. Bass,
477 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1973).
Yet at the trial, not an expert to be seen on the side of the accused, but several for the government. Matz knew this and allowed them to remain missing throughout the trial.
HERE IS A COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDED DEFENSE'S EXPERT REPORT.
The trial judge never bothered to Certify the opinion of one of the government's other so-called expert witnesses. A man by the name of Dr. Who?
How well would you fare if denied any expert witnesses in a "complex computer case." And made to represent yourself. And everyone claiming they support your rights secretly didn't. And worse, you wake up to find out the fact is they knew it.
You would have to see a Doctor when they got done with you...or not see one. Or does that sound insane?
Transcript of 09.26.2003
Judge A. Howard Matz: “Now, I don’t think it is inappropriate for the record to note that I’ve previously authorized experts [fn.1], or at least one expert, I didn't go back and check the file but at least one expert, and I think could have been more then one somebody with specific skill and advanced skill in computer technology as well as to be appointed to represent or assist prior counsel. Have you seen any expert reports?”
Reed: “No. Not at all, Your Honor.”
Judge A. Howard Matz: “Has anybody discussed with you any of Killercop’s prior lawyers, any expert reports that may have been generated?”
Reed: “No, Your Honor.”
[1] " DID I SAY THAT OUT LOUD? I HAD BETTER CHECK MYSELF, I FORGOT THE RULES OF LAW." FACTUALLY AND ACTUALLY HE APPOINTED NOT ONE OR TWO BUT 3 EXPERTS, BUT NO REPORTS EVER FOUND THEIR WAY TO THE DEFENSE...
SO DID THE MISSING CERTIFICATE AND MISSING DOCTOR'S REPORT, REQUIRED BY THE LAW. I MEAN, IT'S NOT LIKE HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY NOTICE. THE LAW SAYS IT IS A "VITAL" CERTIFICATE, TOO!! LIKE A VITAL ORGAN...
"David Reed is now killercop's sixth annointed and second foisted attorney. The one before David Reed, number 5, only lasted less then a week, and quit due to a "conflict in his schedule that he forgot all about." His keen, sharp computer like mind, and it's sudden forgetfulness, cost another week of the freedom and liberty.
The fourth one, before this forgetful one, fought along as a government expert, too. Not! He was the government. And he said this...
The third one, well, never mind.
The first two, working in tandum, well, lets just say they had a conflict they didn't want to discuss on the record. That's all I'm gonna say on that, thanks very much. But at least they were somewhat honest about it, even if they kept it to themself. Yet, they kept forcing themselves on the case....curiously.
A FACT
Transcript of 10.21.2003
Judge A. Howard Matz: “Now, Mr. Reed, one of the items that Killercop has filed seems to suggest that he has never received any investigative reports or any witness statements. "
Judge A. Howard Matz: "Among the material that you received from prior counsel that you and Mr. Nicolaysen put together for delivery to MDC, do you recall whether any investigative reports prepared by anybody acting on behalf of Killercop? You don’t have to say who did it.”
Reed: “On behalf of Killercop - -“
Judge A. Howard Matz: “Yeah.”
Reed: “No.”
But the Ninth knows the importance of experts.
That much is pretty clear.
Can you say Selective Prosecution?
Don't think it didn't happen.
It happens.
It's political.
See?
And that's a fact!
Contempt Of Cop
Washingtonpost.com - 'Contempt of Cop' Continued from Page 5 New D.C. police recruits were keenly aware of what they saw as deficiencies...
Blacks are arrested on 'contempt of cop' charge at higher rate - Blacks are booked by Seattle police for obstructing a public officer eight times as often as whites when population is taken into account, a Seattle P-I investigation of six years...
Henry Louis Gates' Contempt Of Cop Emptywheel - At tonight's nationally televised press conference, a reporter asked President Obama a question about the July 16 arrest of famed Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. Obama set off...
Contempt of Cop' by William Norman Grigg - The police are to the government as the edge is to the knife, insists sociologist David Bayley, who apparently couldn't explain why the typical...
Expert Officer displayed 'contempt of cop' reaction Internal Affairs
Contempt Of Cop II
CAMERA IS THE NEW SPEAK FOR GUN IN THE WILD, WILD WEST! - It's more about 'contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law.
Welcome to America Now step inside the jail cell - The audio exchange in this video was apparently recorded at the U.S. Canada border after a Canadian displayed contempt-of-cop towards the American law enforcement officer asking questions.
Contemptible police tactics - Cops raid the home of a licensed medical marijuana provider in Washington, handcuff the fourteen year old son and put a gun to his head, and search the nineteen year old daughter and take the contents of her mickey-mouse wallet.
How To Survive Traffic Stops in America, Submit, Instantly! - What the cops want is immediate obedience and submission. Many cops are ex-military and view the civilian motorists of America about like they viewed the hapless peasants of Iraq and Afghanistan, that is, with contempt, not as fellow citizens deserving of civility and respect. It is a possibly lethal mistake to do anything other than submit, instantly and obey! Or be ready to shoot first. But aim high.
My radio interview with Katherine Albrecht - Carlos Miller Photography is Not a Crime is interviewed by Katherine Albrecht, activist, radio host and privacy advocate, Tuesday afternoon where they discussed his blog, his arrests, the situation in the United Kingdom and the spread of contempt of cop cases that are popping up on the internet on a regular basis.
|
 |
