James Bunch

possible Self-Defense In Louisiana

James W. Bunch
# 98639
General Delivery
Louisiana State Penitentiary
Angola, LA 70712
USA

DOB 9-15-1954

THE CASE

Case No: 286-606
Date of the Crime: 6-19-1981
Date of Conviction: 3-17-1982
Sentence: Life without the benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence
for one count of murder.

I, James Bunch, stated on 10-8-05, I give this statement to the best of my knowledge.

Summary
On June 19th, 1981, on Friday after I had completed my day of work, I stopped at the swinger's lounge located 3427 Louisa Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. I stopped at this location, because I knew men be there, when they are out of a job. I had my own construction company, so I stopped to find someone who needed a job. I make it to the location across the street from the lounge. I parked my truck into a lot and walked to the lounge.

As I proceed into the parking lot, the two victims come out the door of the lounge into the parking lot, where the incident occurred. I was confronted by two armed men, who gave me reason to believe my life was in danger. Thereafter the incident happened.
Six months after I was arrested and indicted for first degree murder. On March 17th, 1982, I was found guilty as charged of first degree murder.
My trial defense was that I acted in self-defense. I gave testimony to that effort as to what actually happened. Even so, I did not prove it, because the evidence that gave me reason to believe my life was in danger was withheld by the N.O.P.D. (New Orleans Police Department).

Writing The Public
On June 19th, 1981, I stopped at the swinger's lounge, located at 3427 Louisa Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, where I knew were a few men be out of work, but instead I was confronted by two (2) armed men, who once worked for me and theirafter words were passed on by both individuals and they gave me reason to believe that they both were armed with a weapon.

At that time I reached for my weapon and just as I was reaching for my weapon the victim had gone down to the ground behind a bench and got a gun that he had behind the bench. Just as he put his hand on it, I shot him once and as I shot him, the second victim had walked behind me fighting with his hand under his shirt like he was trying to get possession of a weapon, and I shot him, too.
I then walked away from the scene and went to my house which was only about six (6) blocks away from the crime scene.

On December 9th, 1981, I was arrested for a false charge of pick pocket, taken to the central lock-up and charged with murder and attempted murder.
On December 17th, 1981, I was indicted for the crime of first degree murder.
On March 17th, 1982, in a trial by jury, I was found guilty as charges. I was sentenced to "life" in prison for the remainder of my natural life without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence.

In October of 1995, I discovered the state of Louisiana through its agents namely the Orleans Parish criminal Distrtict Attorney's office of Harry F. Connick of New Orleans, Louisiana, and his assistant David Plaunicky willfully and intentionally withheld favorable material evidence from my trial defense counsel during trial. My defense at trial was self-defense.

However, after the discovery of the assistant trial prosecutor's (David Plaunicky's) misconduct I sought for habeas relief in the federal court after discovered the state had recovered a weapon from the crime scene. Since the Brady material was a new claim, the state requested that the habeas petition be dismissed without prejudice. Case no: 95-1883, Sec. "T" (6). The U.S. Eastern District Court, District Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. dismissed the application without prejudice on October 6th, 1995.

On May 14th, 1996, I filed with the trial court a motion for "newly discovered evidence" wherein I contended that the trial prosecutor withheld Brady material in violation of my right to due process of law under the United States and Louisiana Constitution.

An evidentiary hearing was granted which resulted in the trial court granting a new trial after it determined that the state had violated the standard set forth under Brady v. Maryland.

On November 15th, 1995, that assistant attorney for the state sought writ to the Louisiana Supreme Court in the state's effort to have my conviction and sentence reinstated. Assistant attorney/ district attorney's office of the Hon. Harry F. Connick did and willfully with intention/purpose misrepresented the facts of the Brady claim by substituting a prior petition that had been reviewed and denied in the District and Louisiana Supreme Court.

The petition used by the assistant district attorney was based upon new evidence in the form of witnesses' testimony that was discovered a few days after my trial by defense. This was not Brady material and the state had no knowledge of the information these witnesses had sometime later. One of the victims notified a member of my family and confessed that he had lied at trial, and would tell the truth, if it helped.

I was denied an opportunity to traverse the state's contention in the State Supreme Court. Attorney for me during the hearing proceeding, Ms. Laurie White, forwarded the records that she had obtained from the state, therein, she stated, she was no longer on my case and that I had 15 days to respond to the state's writ application filed in the State Supreme Court on November 15th, 1995. However, I discovered that I was not supplied with a complete transcript record of the evidentiary hearing proceedings, at which time I filed a motion to stay the proceeding with the Supreme Court. Therein, I stated I could not properly respond, because the testimony of one Rita Moses was missing, that the assistant writ was an incomplete application for review. The State Supreme Court never replied, however, the assistant Kevin Gillie was advised to file a supplement brief to complete the hearing transcript.

The District Attorney office clearly misled the Supreme Court by fraud in order to get that court to reverse the trial court ruling. The Supreme Court decision clearly stated:
Bunch raised identical issues in an earlier application for post conviction relief, which this court denied. Docket no: 96-KP-2761, June 20th, 1997.

After returning back to the Eastern District Federal Court of December 1997, on February 10th, 1998, an order from the Chief Judge Morey L. Sear ordered that no magistrate thereafter this order shall not rule on this case for any purpose and assigned the case before Judge Porteous, Jr.
Case no: 97-3688, Sec. "T" (6)
Judge Porteous and the magistrate had knowledge of the fact of the disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding of the fact that the criminal district attorney's office and his assistant had withheld favorable exculpatory evidence which violated my constitutional right.

Judge Porteous was fully aware of the fact of my case. The fact that the District Attorney had withheld evidence recovered on the crime scene on June 19th, 1981. The trial prosecutor told the jury in his closing argument that I drove across the lake and threw away the murder weapon.

I discovered through the records of the state of Louisiana Supreme Court a document on behalf of the District Attorney's office of Harry F. Connick and his assistant William R. Campbell, Jr. in its answer to my direct appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court on August 2nd, 1982. They alleged in their opposition brief that the murder weapon was recovered in the scene of the incident that occurred June 19th, 1981.
Case no: 82-KA-1372

It is clear, the intoduction of a gun at my trial recovered at the crime scene did not belong to me, would have told the jury that two (2) aggressors attacked me with each a weapon and that it would have justified self-defense in such a situation. Therefore, the presence of the weapon recovered on the crime scene would have been very material to point to the jury's verdict to a rightful case of self-defense. Without that evidence I did not have a fair trial or a proper defense or a fair verdict from a jury who was deprived by David Plaunicky as trial prosecutor of this important fact.

Furthermore, since the state opposition brief under case number 82-KA-1372 stated, a weapon was recovered at the crime scene. The weapon, that the state alleges in its opposition and the trial prosecutor improper testimony to the jury in its closing argument that I, Bunch, drove across the lake and threw away the murder weapon, "proves the weapon David Plaunicky withheld during trial recovered at the crime scene was in fact one of the victim's weapons". The police found clear prove of self-defense.

Had the state of Louisiana Supreme Court been confronted with this fact, and not the fraud committed upon it by assistant Kevin Gillie as District Attorney, the outcome would have been different.

The District Attorney's office of Harry. F. Connick rightout told a lie to the State Supreme Court in their effort to overturn the trial court judge's ruling order and granting a new trial, when they told the Supreme Court, I alleged that I was entitled to post conviction styled as a motion for new trial on basis of newly discovered evidence in the form of testimony of witnesses whom the defendant believes corroborates his version of the facts that the murder was committed in self defense.

Testimony by Mr. Phillip Joseph (one of the victims):
question by Ms. White (my attorney) at hearing
Q: Were you holding a gun that day?
A: I had a gun.

By the court:
Q: Mr. Joseph, I'm looking at this affidavit. You say in this affidavit that "James Bunch shot Mr. Woodard and me Phillip Joseph after we made an attempt to shoot him", is this a correct statement?
A: (by Mr. Joseph) Yes, that's correct.
Case no: 286-606

In essence, the trial court's decision was never opposed in the Louisiana Supreme Court. The issue submitted into the Supreme Court by assistant Kevin Gillie has no concern as to whether Brady was violated to warrant the new trial granted by the trial court.

Criminal District Court for the Parish of New Orleans (19 pages, pdf)
Transcript of the Hearing
on September 10, 1996

Criminal District Court for the Parish of New Orleans (29 pages, pdf)
Transcript of the Motion Hearing
as heard on September 27, 1996

www.spearslaw.com/IkesStory.htm
Ike Spears, former judge, Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans

United States District Court (pdf)
Eastern District of Louisiana
Court Order and Reasons
July 21, 1999

United States District Court (14 pages, pdf)
Eastern District of Louisiana
Report and Recomendation
April 6, 2000

United States District Court (pdf)
Notice of Hearing
on May 24, 2000

Efforts to obtain a transcript of the Closing Arguments and Jury Charge taken during the trial on March 17, 1982 (pdf)

Surpreme Court of the United States (26 pages, pdf)
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Former Pauperis
March 22, 2005

United States Supreme Court (10 pages, pdf)
Motion and Petition for Rehearing
June 14, 2005

Motion to Proceed and Show Cause for Second and Successive Writ of Habeas Corpus (pdf)
No: 06-30582, July 10, 2006

Submitted
James Bunch.

James Bunch's News Forum

For more information check out the rest of the Innocent In Prison Project International website, please.