|
Tony Egbuna Ford |
|
Petition on his case |
Petizione sul suo caso |
||
|
CLAIM TEN JURY MISCONDUCT DEPRIVED MR. FORD OF DUE PROCESS AND DEPRIVED HIM OF HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE EVIDENCE USED AGAINST HIM IN OPEN COURT.
A. The Basis for the Claim The jury in Mr. Ford's trial received unsworn testimony by two jurors, who told the other jurors that they, like Myra and Lis Murillo, had also been shot at and that they would never forget the face of the person who shot at them.1 This speaks directly to the claims concerning the denial of an expert in eyewitness identification. Had the trial court allowed Mr. Ford the assistance of such an expert, the jury would have had correct information in regard to the identical testimony by witness Myra Murillo. As is explained above, the confidence of the eyewitness has nothing to do with the accuracy of the witness. Even then, however, these accounts by these two jurors interjected non-record evidence into the jury's deliberations on the central matter in dispute. For these reasons, Mr. Ford's right to due process - trial before an impartial jury that considers only the evidence presented in the courtroom and admitted into evidence - and his Sixth Amendment right to confront the evidence against him were denied. Clearly established Supreme Court precedent requires that a criminal defendant be afforded the right to confront the evidence, and the witnesses against him, and the right to a jury that considers only the evidence presented at trial. Parker v Gladden, 385 US 363, 364-65 (1966); Turner v Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 472-73 (1965). B. State Court Proceedings This claim was presented as Claim 13 in the Amended Original Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the state courts. The state courts rejected the claim on the merits. 1The source of this information is a post-trial interview of the jury foreman by an investigator for trial counsel, Linda Tharp. See Exhibit 23. |