June 21, 2011

Your Honor,

The verdict is contrary to the evidence. Let the evidence speak for itself. Click here.

I would like to let you know that the jury’s impartiality was affected by the willful and prejudicial misconduct of you and the prosecutor. You allowed the prosecutor to use non probative unfair prejudicial autopsy photographs to stir the jury’s emotions. And you also allowed her to use perjured testimony in order to convict me. There is no doubt that you allowed her to mislead the jury by false statement of fact. To the contrary, you didn’t allow me to present probative evidence and material witnesses relevant to my defense. You denied my right to present a complete defense. You knew that you openly and deliberately violated my constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process of law. Let the record speak for itself.

All I know is, I have been denied a fair trial because you were totally against me, and you allied yourself with the prosecution in the effort to convict me. I really don’t understand what kind of satisfaction you get by convicting an innocent person.

Even though you knew the prosecution witnesses (Angesom, Merhawi, Yehferom, Yosef, Sgt. Rittenhouse, Inspector Beal, and the lead investigator in this case Sgt. Morris) committed perjury relevant to the case, you didn’t bother to correct their perjured testimony. As far as I know, a lie is a lie, no matter what its subject, and if it is in anyway relevant to the case, you have a constitutional duty to correct what you know to be false and elicit the truth because all perjury pollutes a trial, making it hard for jurors to see the truth.

You knew that you allowed perjury in your courtroom, and you also knew that my conviction rested wholly on perjured testimony. For instance, you knew definitely Angesom committed perjury relevant to the case but you didn’t bother to correct his perjured testimony. Click here 1, 2, 3.

When I brought Angesom’s perjured testimony to your attention and I addressed my concern about it, you ignored me completely as if I hadn’t even raised a concern. Then, when I asked for an explanation, you had me removed from the courtroom because you had no explanation or answer for your wrongdoing. All I know is, you violated my right to be present at my trial. The trial from beginning to end was fundamentally unfair. And all I want to say is, if you had taken “affirmative action” to recall Angesom and examine him under oath, the outcome of his testimony would have contributed positively to the administration of justice. Click here.

Sincerely,                                                            Asmerom T. Gebreselassie

 

P.S. Penal Code Section 118. Perjury - Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the state of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the state of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury.

Penal Code Section 127. Subornation of perjury – Every person who willfully procures another person to commit perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and is punishable in the same manner as he or she would be if personally guilty of the perjury so procured.