Saturday, June 30, 2012

Guest Blog- Questions/Comments on Mr Bailey's Legal Problems

I am writing on behalf of my incarcerated friend, Mr. Paul Clarence Bailey. I believe he is currently being held illegally in the Dallas jail and the judge in his case will not allow him to appear in court to represent himself in two cases,

      1. the first is in Federal Court case #0943097 to request an enjoinment by the bankruptcy court for the criminal Case #F11-00137 (in which the alleged incident had been previously discharged in bankruptcy). The Dallas Judge Teresa Hawthorne said he is going nowhere to represent himself  (is this just another example of it being a crime to be poor and not being willing to subject his future on a court appointed attorney that won't bother looking at the case material before he shows up to court?).  The reason he was moved to Dallas is because he has uncovered much malfeasance and other additional issues in a case in Collin County.
      1. The Case in Collin County where he was found guilty has generated much interest and I will detail my concerns below. The Case Number is #366-81879-09. He has filed a motion for a new trial and wants to appear in court to represent himself and the judge in Dallas will not allow him to do so.

Please bear with me as I describe to you my view of how I would feel if I had been a juror that convicted Mr. Bailey and then subsequently found out that there had been an orchestrated effort to keep many relevant issues that could have made a difference in Mr. Bailey's trial from the jury. Knowing what I know about this trial, the evidence that was not allowed, and the obvious bungles or intentional omissions from his defense, have literally kept me awake at night and made me really question our system of justice.

 Stop and think how you would feel if you had voted guilty based on what was presented in court and then found out that an upstanding man had actually had some extremely unfortunate things happen to him, instigated by a drug-addicted and violent son (who called 911 in the middle of the night, claiming his father was suicidal- which would get the police out there and get his father out of his way so he could perpetrate a theft), but certainly not limited to having a “defense” attorney that did not have his clients' best interests at heart?

Bear in mind that, all of this could have been prevented had Frisco PD just apologized for the “comedy of errors” once Policewoman Stansell asked “Mr Bailey, who did you think was at your door? Did you think it was your son?”.     When she asked that question, she had just figured out that Mr Bailey's drug-addicted son set all this in motion and it would never have happened had the Police Department simply followed proper police protocol (specifically: parking the police car in front of the home, turning on the police car's lights so it could be seen from front door, and saying “Police” when banging on the door in the middle of the night with the butt of their flashlight. To make matters worse, they rustled around in the bushes which further made Mr Bailey believe it was his son, back to rob him. Once Mr Bailey was arrested for firing a warning shot inside his home (a pellet gun would have made a bigger hole in the sheetrock), his son did in fact come in (while police officers were still in Mr. Bailey's home) and take the things he needed to perpetrate the very crimes Mr. Bailey was attempting to keep from occurring. He stole his credit cards and wallet. The next day his son was in fact arrested for attempting to purchase a car with stolen identity. He is in fact in prison right now for that.

Now to make matters worse, what if I told you that Mr. Bailey's account could not be corroborated by Policewoman Stansell, because her question is not in the evidence presented to the court and she cannot do it herself because she has passed away, supposedly to suicide?

What if I also told you that Mr Bailey's court-appointed attorney, admitted that he was best-friends with Officer Stansell's husband and that he commented that (his words) “she was a bit**”.

Now, as a former Audit Manager, I made my living finding problems with documents, evidence, programs, and policies, and my goal was always to find out what happened and its root cause in order to correct the problem and/or prevent future problems. 

There are clearly “problems” with this case and I often wonder how often this goes on in not only our state, but our nation. Hundreds....perhaps thousands each year?    That question haunts me. I can't think of anything worse than putting a man in jail that does not deserve to be there.

These are just some of the issues that really disturb me about this specific case:

1) “Defense” wouldn't show Mr Bailey's recreated video which could have shown the jury some context. They also might have seen that he lives in a beautiful home and just might not be seen as much of a threat.

2) On the tape, you can hear Mr Bailey say "Get out of here Rick!" then the policeman ran to his car and said on the tape "He said Get out of here, you Prick!"

3) Video Authenticator indicated that there was a silent spot on the tape, sort of like the Watergate Tapes which to the authenticator, indicated tampering. That also was not allowed into evidence.

4) Why was the question that Officer Stansell asked Mr Bailey not shown in any notes or tapes? She asked him "Mr Bailey, who did you think was at the door? Did you believe it was your son?"  Were they, by this time, in so deep that they had to make the evidence allowed in court, fit the story by police who fell for a setup by a drug addict who wanted his father out of his way so he could rob him?

5) Why is the fact that Rick is now in prison for the very crime Mr Bailey sought to prevent, not in evidence?

6) Why was Rick allowed to mill around and take the items that he needed to commit those crimes (wallet etc), while the police were still at Mr Bailey's house (after his arrest) and why was the jury not notified of it?

7) Why would “Defense” Attorney Gibbs not recuse himself since there was an obvious conflict of interest since he claimed he was Stansell's husband's “best friend” and that (his words) she was a real bit**?   What about the lack of any sort of defense?

8) Why was a nearly 60 year old man with obvious health problems (two subsequent heart attacks after the arrest ordeal) held under the Patriot Act without counsel?

9) Why would Mr. Bailey's son Rick not be allowed to testify as to what happened that evening?

10) Since Castle law gives Mr Bailey the right to protect his property (remember police clearly did not follow protocol meaning there was no way Mr. Bailey could know it was police banging on his door instead of his son and rustling through his bushes in the middle of the night), “Defense” Attorney Gibbs had to make sure no defense occurred for Mr Bailey. I can come to no other conclusion than, this man's collusion, complacency, incompetence, fear of the Collin County “system” or laziness put Mr Bailey in jail.

It is quite disheartening to me to see that people without options and opportunity, are treated as insignificant in our society- simply because they cannot afford to level the playing field. I simply cannot stand by idly and watch the suffering of anyone less fortunate, if I have the opportunity to make a difference.

I could go on and on about the things that I would have wanted to know about the circumstances surrounding that unfortunate evening had I been a juror. If I were to subsequently learn that I had not been told all of the facts and circumstances of the event and mishandling/tampering of evidence, malpractice by his attorney, and my reliance on that to find him guilty.
Post a Comment