November 24, 2007
Some more violations of law that took place at my trial:
I pray that God grants me mercy and that someone that believes in justice will come to my aid.
There are no lawyers in the state of Louisiana who will take on this case. It will be like they are fighting against the system that they build. It is a corrupt system that these lawyers in this state uphold without honor, without truth, without justice or laws.
The citizens of this state are at the mercy and the control of the judges and the district attorneys who have set themselves up as Gods!
In accordance with the law and statute, the court shall upon petition of the defendant overturn any conviction and set aside the sentence and order the release of the defendant, based on any and all defect in procedure and/ or laws of the United States Constitution and/ or Constitution of the State of Louisiana.
1. Violation of my Fifth Amendment
(Bank & Trust v. Lane)
Rule crim. Proc. # 6+7 U.S.C.A. Amed. 5, Federal. Section (5) of Louisiana Constitution of 1974,
States in part:
“No warrant shall issue without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, the persons or thing to be seized and the lawful purpose or reason for the search.”
Louisiana Constitution of 1974, Section (15) Initiation of Prosecution:
Violation: Art. 577 pleading of limitation: expire
The issue that a prosecution was not timely instituted may be raised at any time, but only once and shall be tried by the court alone. If raised during the trial a hearing thereon may be deferred until the end of the trial. The state shall not be required to allege facts showing that the time limitation has not expired.
By law the prosecutor has a time limit to bring an accused person before the court to be tried. On all crimes. In my cse the limitation of time was:
Art. 572, which gives the prosecutor six (6) years for a felony (non-capital offenses) necessarily punishable by imprisonment at hard labor.
Art. 578, in capital cases after three (3) years from the date of institution of prosecution.
It is well established by the court records that this alleged crime occurred on March 12, 1981. I was arrested on April 6, 2000. As you can see, this is well over (21) years. The court records prove that the time for prosecution has run out, expired. The judge and district attorney, professional men of law, knew that the time had expired. Total disregarding Louisiana Constitutional Law, that they took an oath to uphold.
Louisiana Constitution of 1974:
Article (382) Instituting Criminal Prosecutions:
(A) A prosecution for an offense punishable by death or for an offense punishable by life imprisonment, shall be instituted by indictment by a Grand Jury only, the violation occurred when the judge allowed the indictment to be amended by the district attorney. I have provided a copy of the original indictment and more for you to review. Go to www.iippi.org/inmates/louisiana/marlocharles.html
This proposition is also certainly unsound on principle. In the last analysis it would mean that a prosecutor could not safely introduce or advocate at a trial evidence or theories, however relevant to the alleged crime charged in the indictment, which he had not presented to the Grand Jury such as ex parte Bain; 121 U.S. 1,7 s.ct. 781,30 L.Ed.849. The violation occurred when the judge and the district attorney conspired to manipulate the law. To do that has been prohibited by law.
Ex parte Bain, [361 U.S. 216]
The court order that the indictment be amended by striking out the words, that some specific and relevant allegations the Grand Jury had stricken from the indictment so that Bain might be convicted without proof of those particular allegations, in holding that this could not be done, “that after the indictment was changed it was no longer the indictment of the Grand Jury who presented it.” Any other doctrine would place the rights of the citizen which were intended to be protected by the constitutional provision at the mercy of the court or prosecuting attorney, 121 U.S. 1, 13.
United States v. Norris, 281 U.S. 619, 50 S.ct. 424, 74 L. Ed. 1076, and Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 80 S.ct. 270, 4 L. Ed. 2d. 252, Lend no support to the court thesis.
They held only that consistently with the Fifth Amendment: a trial judge could not amend the indictment itself, either by striking or adding material language, or, amounting to the latter, by permitting a conviction on evidence or theories not fairly embraced in the charges made in the indictment. To allow this would in effect permit a defendant to be put to trial upon an indictment found not by a grand jury but by a judge.
The violation occurred when the judge superseded his authority over the power of the grand jury to have the indictment amended. After the indictment was amended numerous of times, its infect left the without subject matter jurisdiction to go to trial. Under the Constitution of Louisiana and the U.S., the district attorney was without authority to prosecute. Again the law does not matter to them.
“Ex Post Facto Violation”
Louisiana, ex post facto clause (state ex rel Glover, 93-2330, 660 So. 2d. 1189, 1200) states in pertinent part:
(1) After the commission of an offense which is relation to the offense or its punishment alter the situation of a party to his disadvantage.
Due to the numberous of time that the indictment was amended the defendant, Marlo Charles, was unable to properly prepare for a meaningful challenge to the allegation that was set forth in the indictment.
Federal Ex post facto clause
(Collins v. Youngblood
, 487 U.S. 37, 110 S.ct. 2715, 111 L.Ed. 2d. 30. states in pertinent part:
(1) depriving the defendant of a defense available at the time of the commission of the crime.
Laws that deprive me of a defense, are ex post facto. I was deprived of a defense, because as stated by the DNA expert at my trial, that all of the DNA was exhausted, therefore I could not re-test my DNA to that of the sample from the sexual assault kit of 1981. It was all used up in 1999 for the testing of Clyde A. Charles, my brother.
Also, people’s memory fade, evidence is lost, misplaced and become degrade over a period of time. People’s memory fade and it is hard for them to give accurate account as to what happened, when it happened and the place and time of the events.
21 years have passed from my brother’s trial and conviction to my arrest. It is hard to fight against what time can do.
(2) Calder v. Bell
, 3. U.S. 386, 3 Da11, 386, 1 L.Ed. 648, Law that alters the legal rules of evidence and require less or different testimony that the law required at the time of the commission of the offense to convict the offender.
My brother, Clyde, had two trials. I had one trial. In each of the trials, the testimony of the witnesses changes from trial to trial. The question is, did the judge and the district attorney uphold the laws of the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Louisiana?
Was Marlo Charles’ conviction obtained under the laws?
Was he convicted of an offense not charged in the indictment?
You now have the facts under the laws. Now you can be the judge. I await your verdict!!! I can be reached at the address given above and on my IIPPI webpage.
“Looking for Justice”
P.S.: The district attorney M. Rhodes was or maybe still is a cocaine user. He was under the influence of this drug throughout my trial. He checked into a rehab clinic in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He put people in prison from using this drug, and he walks free!