Post by Admin on May 20, 2007 18:32:50 GMT -5
www.enddeathpenaltyforbretthartmann.com/
Brett was a single man of 23 at the time of
his arrest.
He shared an apartment, and living
expenses with his mother, while working as
a chef for a well recognized restaurant.
Brett has always been a compassionate
person, never confrontational, facing life
with great inner strength and a tremendous
sense of humor.
He is a man with a ready smile, well liked by
all who know him.
In fact, after Brett's arrest, but prior to his indictment, deputy Police Chief
Michael Matulavich admitted during a press conference that they did not
have enough evidence to charge Brett. That was until they thought they had
found new evidence that would break the case. They indicted Brett and then
went to collect this evidence.
Even though this "big break" turned out to be nothing, they had already
indicted Brett and released it to the media, they then went ahead with his
trial.
His trial started on April 14th, 1998, and though he is innocent, even
testifying on his own behalf, he was found guilty on April 30th, 1998.
Brett was sentenced to death on May 22nd, 1998.
This is a very short period of time for a death penalty case.
Brett was arrested on September 10th, 1997 for
the murder of Winda D. Snipes.
Brett was the person who discovered Winda,
and placed a series of 911 calls to report it.
We know that Brett is innocent and have the
facts to show it. At trial, though Brett's alibi was
established, it was ignored. We now have possession of police records
showing that the state also has exculpatory evidence that has never been
made available to his defense.
It was only his actions after finding her, and how he reported it, that placed
a shadow over his innocence, making him a convenient and instant suspect.
This jump to arrest and convict Brett is shown by the way the investigation
was conducted, evidence was handled, and the press releases made by the
police department.
After hours of what is called "rapid fire interrogation", Brett's statements
made to the police never faltered, nor has he ever shown a consciousness
of guilt, which in cases of factual innocence, this is a key factor to look at.
When Brett went to court he faced a prosecutor who was well known to be
overzealous, and would try to win at all costs. She was also known to over
indict, violate disclosure rules, withhold evidence, and then target defense
attorney's who opposed her. Brett's Prosecutor...
The crux of the state's case relied on erroneous blood spatter evidence,
and the testimony of a man who has misrepresented his credentials,
manipulated data, is facing ethics charges, and is under suspicion due to
evidence that had been altered while in his chain of custody, among other
things. Blood Spatter...
The state's case not only contains circumstantial evidence, but also
includes, testimony that shows deliberate misleading statements, perjured
testimony, sloppy investigation and processing of evidence. State's Perjury...
Brett faced this with a public defense team that did little to nothing to
defend him. Never asking or accepting Brett's side of events, saying that
they preferred to let the evidence tell them what happened, and then relied
on the State's evidence for trial.
Their strategy even included hiding from Brett and the court, the fact that
they had hired and were in possession of, expert blood spatter opinions
that would have aided in Brett's defense.
His defense team further harmed Brett by failing to make important points
during trial.
This, along with final filing dates that his post conviction attorney's missed,
has left Brett unable to show his innocence on appeal.
Once these mistakes are made, that information is lost to your case.
Brett's State appeals have been denied.
Brett did not receive an adequate defense, nor a fair and just trial.
He has been wrongly convicted, and given the death penalty.
Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides?
Brett was a single man of 23 at the time of
his arrest.
He shared an apartment, and living
expenses with his mother, while working as
a chef for a well recognized restaurant.
Brett has always been a compassionate
person, never confrontational, facing life
with great inner strength and a tremendous
sense of humor.
He is a man with a ready smile, well liked by
all who know him.
In fact, after Brett's arrest, but prior to his indictment, deputy Police Chief
Michael Matulavich admitted during a press conference that they did not
have enough evidence to charge Brett. That was until they thought they had
found new evidence that would break the case. They indicted Brett and then
went to collect this evidence.
Even though this "big break" turned out to be nothing, they had already
indicted Brett and released it to the media, they then went ahead with his
trial.
His trial started on April 14th, 1998, and though he is innocent, even
testifying on his own behalf, he was found guilty on April 30th, 1998.
Brett was sentenced to death on May 22nd, 1998.
This is a very short period of time for a death penalty case.
Brett was arrested on September 10th, 1997 for
the murder of Winda D. Snipes.
Brett was the person who discovered Winda,
and placed a series of 911 calls to report it.
We know that Brett is innocent and have the
facts to show it. At trial, though Brett's alibi was
established, it was ignored. We now have possession of police records
showing that the state also has exculpatory evidence that has never been
made available to his defense.
It was only his actions after finding her, and how he reported it, that placed
a shadow over his innocence, making him a convenient and instant suspect.
This jump to arrest and convict Brett is shown by the way the investigation
was conducted, evidence was handled, and the press releases made by the
police department.
After hours of what is called "rapid fire interrogation", Brett's statements
made to the police never faltered, nor has he ever shown a consciousness
of guilt, which in cases of factual innocence, this is a key factor to look at.
When Brett went to court he faced a prosecutor who was well known to be
overzealous, and would try to win at all costs. She was also known to over
indict, violate disclosure rules, withhold evidence, and then target defense
attorney's who opposed her. Brett's Prosecutor...
The crux of the state's case relied on erroneous blood spatter evidence,
and the testimony of a man who has misrepresented his credentials,
manipulated data, is facing ethics charges, and is under suspicion due to
evidence that had been altered while in his chain of custody, among other
things. Blood Spatter...
The state's case not only contains circumstantial evidence, but also
includes, testimony that shows deliberate misleading statements, perjured
testimony, sloppy investigation and processing of evidence. State's Perjury...
Brett faced this with a public defense team that did little to nothing to
defend him. Never asking or accepting Brett's side of events, saying that
they preferred to let the evidence tell them what happened, and then relied
on the State's evidence for trial.
Their strategy even included hiding from Brett and the court, the fact that
they had hired and were in possession of, expert blood spatter opinions
that would have aided in Brett's defense.
His defense team further harmed Brett by failing to make important points
during trial.
This, along with final filing dates that his post conviction attorney's missed,
has left Brett unable to show his innocence on appeal.
Once these mistakes are made, that information is lost to your case.
Brett's State appeals have been denied.
Brett did not receive an adequate defense, nor a fair and just trial.
He has been wrongly convicted, and given the death penalty.
Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides?