banner.jpg

II

 

                ShaneCrum.jpg                           

 

Shane Crum 334-540

M.C.I. POBox 57

Marion, OH. 43301

 

 

 

 

 I am an innocent man in prison, and I need your help!!

 

To whom it may concern:

I am writing this letter in the hope your organization can help me and my family. I am an innocent man who has been incarcerated since 1998. My family and I have tried everything we could think of, and have appealed the case all the way up to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. We have run out of options and hope. My family and I need your help!!

I am enclosing a list of the issues with my case. The Courts denied our appeals. However, since those appeals, the State Legislators have changed several laws that thoroughly agree with the issues we raised on appeal. If that were not enough, the Courts have made recent decisions in other cases that also agree with those same issues we raised on appeal. A couple issues listed on the enclosed page have not been litigated as of this moment. There has never been any physical or biological evidence whatsoever. Please just look over the enclosed list.

 

If you &/or your organization are able to help me, and would like more information, please either contact me at the above address, or my Mother and Sister through the contact information at the bottom of this page. There are several problems with the mail room at this institution, and it may be more efficient for you to contact my Mother and Sister. I am more likely to get "LEGAL MAIL", but even that can come late if at all. If you e-mail my Mother, please place my name on the subject line of the e-mail so she knows what it pertains to. My Mother is attempting to find a way to transfer my entire case onto a C.D. or U.S.B. memory stick. If you know a way to do that please contact her. The objective for transferring the case to C.D. is to make it easier to mail or even e-mail whatever files are needed by those wishing to help to them.

 

If you are unable to help, could you please put us in contact with someone that can and will? This injustice has drained me and my family emotionally, physically, financially, and spiritually. We need to merely right this wrong. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

HOPEFULLY SUBMITTED

SignShaneCrum

 

 

Shane Crum # 334-540

 M.C.I.   POBox 57

Marion, OH 43301

or you address

Sally Crum/Sherry Crum 

1081 Lumen Rd.N.W.

Minerva, Oh. 44657

www.unfair-justice.org


   

THE ISSUES WITH MY CASE

1)

Statements made by two witnesses to the police were withheld by the prosecution from the defense. This is "Brady Material".

2)

Manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence (There has never been any evidence or witnesses, because the crime never happened).

3)

Coerced statements/accusations made by the victim, that were not subjected to analysis or investigation, nor corroborated by witnesses, and which have lead to a False Memory (False Memory Syndrome Foundation, 1955 Locust St., PO Box 30044, Philadelphia, Pa. 19130-5766).

4)

Nurse Practitioner not qualified as an expert, giving opinions and statements not supported by evidence, nor endorsed by the scientific community, or quantified through regularly accepted scientific practices and tests.

5)

Child psychologist giving statements not supported by evidence or his own observations.

6)  

The admission of these statements (ISSUES 3-5).

7)   

The elements of each charge, independently or accumulatively, can not be reached with the so called evidence, (coerced witness statements ISSUE 3 Fraudulent expert opinions ISSUES 4+5) nor can the animus of each charge be proven with these collectively. The mens rea and actus reus of one crime cannot be used to support the conviction of another.

8)   

Ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

9)   

Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

10)  

All of these errors have resulted in the conviction of an innocent man.


   

ISSUES WITH MY SENTENCING

 

1)    Given a consecutive sentence of two life sentences plus two years for charges arriving from alleged crimes and all from the same circumstances.

2)           The application of the SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY against EX POST FACTO laws where such registration was not law at the time of the alleged crimes.


   
ISSUES IN NEED OF FURTHER INVESTIGATION
IN MY CASE

1)  

Since Nurse Practitioner Donna Abbott's physical examination of Kayla was performed on February 7, 1996, and Dr. David Coleman reported his first contact with Kayla was on April 11, 1996, then who is the "Doctor" that went to Kayla's home to speak to her about the "bad things her Daddy did“, prior to the physical examination, and in mentioned Nurse Practitioner           Abbott's report?  Where are the recordings or transcripts of this visit by the Doctor? Where is the report of this meeting?

2)

I agree to take polygraph test, but the detectives refused to give it to me, and they never gave one to anyone else.

3)

Nurse Practitioner Abbott did not find any physical evidence, but then stated she relied upon the "detailed history" given by Kayla to come to the opinion she gave. How then can Nurse Practitioner Abbott be certain that Kayla was not reciting a so-called "detailed history" given to Kayla by the mysterious doctor that visited with and spoke to Kayla at her home prior to the physical examination mentioned in ISSUE 1) or from suggestive interview methods?

4)

Between the months of July and December 1995, Kayla would go to the emergency room at Aultman hospital in Canton, Ohio, on two separate occasions to receive stitches in her head from injuries she suffered while in the custody of Christine McNutt and Johnny Confalone. Both times, I was called to the hospital from work. After the second incident, I told Christine I would sue for sole custody of Kayla should she sustain another injury. About a month later, January of 1996, I was suddenly being investigated for molesting Kayla. These accusations are directly related to and a result of a bad separation between Christine and I. We need to get the hospital records to validate what I am saying.

5)

 There are a number of suggestive interview methods recorded in my case files, and performed by various people who interrogated, questioned, and simply spoke to Kayla. These include: - interview bias, - repeated interviews, - repeated questioning, - interviews by adults with "high status", selective rewards and punishments, specific questions, - misleading/leading questions, and stereotype induction. - As well as maximum leading questions that include accusatory or intimidating atmosphere, aggressive and coercive interviews, questions that tell the child what the adult want to discuss, communicate a desired response, uses harsh words, asking questions in rapid succession, and non-verbal behaviors that communicate threats and hostility. Preschool children are most vulnerable to these methods.

6)

No professional or clinician can distinguish between true and accurate allegations and one made from suggestive interview methods. Research shows their ability to do so was lower than chance.

7)

The use of anatomical dolls despite the research indicating they have a highly suggestive nature, and the fact they should never be used with young children. The use of these dolls are known to increase inaccurate reports of various types of touching in non-abused children.

8)

 Christine and Johnny married shortly after my incarceration. Johnny had only been in Kayla's life approximately 5 months prior to these allegations. According to Johnny's statements, he used suggestive interview methods to coerce Kayla into making vague statements about "daddy", when he questioned her about where she learned the open mouth kiss. He ignored at least two other responses (on T.V., and "I don't know") only to stop the interrogation after she said "daddy". She was in tears when he finished, and this was the very first interview in which any form of allegation was made.

9)

 Theresa Neiwandowski from Stark County Department of Human Services/Child Protective Services sat in on my interview with Detective Jill Stevenson, and Dr. Coleman sent his report (dated 5/15/96) to her. Despite all of this involvement with the case, she did not testify for the prosecution. We need to find out why?

10)

 There are three people mentioned in the physical examination report from Nurse Abbott, who where present during Kayla's visit to Akron Children Medical Center, and should have relevant information. None of whom were ever called to testify by either the defense or the prosecution. One of whom, also recorded Kayla's statements about the mysterious Doctor that visited Kayla at her home. The three people are: Barb Duvall; LPN, Denise Brown; Child Protective Services of Stark County, and Jamie Donohue; LSW Social Worker. We should contact these individuals and find out what they remember and if they recorded anything.


   

 STATEMENT OF

THE FACTS

AND CASE

 Carlson was tohttp://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2005/2005-Ohio-7037.pdf

{¶2} On October 24, 1996, appellant was indicted on one count of rape, with a specification of force or threat of force when the victim was less than 13 years of age, ne count of felonious sexual penetration, with a specification of force or threat of force when the victim was less than 13 years of age, and one count of gross sexual imposition. These offenses occurred from on or about September 1, 1994, to on or about January 31, 1996. The victim was appellant’s child who was born in 1991.

{¶3} A jury trial was conducted on March 24, 1997, and continued until March 26, 1997. On March 27, 1997, the jury convicted appellant on all counts in the indictment as well as the specifications. On March 31, 1997, appellant was sentenced on the counts of rape and of felonious sexual penetration to two mandatory life sentences, to be served consecutively. On the count of gross sexual imposition, appellant was sentenced to two years in prison, to be served consecutively to the sentences on the counts of rape and felonious sexual penetration.

{¶4} Appellant appealed the conviction and sentence. On October 26, 1998, this Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. State v. Crum (Oct. 26, 1998), Stark App. No. 97-CA-0134, 1998 WL 818055, jurisdiction declined, 85 Ohio St.3d 1406, 706 N.E.2d 788. Stark County App. Case No. 2005CA00024 3

{¶5} On February 19, 2004, appellant filed a petition to vacate or set aside sentence pursuant to R.C. 2953.21. On November 12, 2004, the State filed a response to appellant’s petition and a motion for summary judgment. On December 16, 2004, the trial court denied appellant’s petition and granted summary judgment in favor of appellee, the State of Ohio.

{¶6} It is from the December 16, 2004, Judgment Entry that appellant appeals, raising the following assignments of error:

{¶7} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING APPELLANT CRUM’S PETITION WHEREIN HE SET FORTH THAT HE WAS UNAVOIDABLY PREVENTED FROM DISCOVERING THE NEW EVIDENCE THAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE POST-CONVICTION [SIC] PETITION.

{¶8} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING APPELLANT CRUM’S PETITION WITHOUT FIRST HOLDING A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE WAS UNAVOIDABLY PREVENTED FROM DISCOVERING THE NEW EVIDENCE.

{¶9} “III. APPELLANT CRUM WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL.”

{¶10} In the first assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it dismissed appellant’s petition for postconviction relief. We disagree.

{¶11} In reviewing a trial court's denial of a petition for postconviction relief, absent a showing of abuse of discretion, we will not overrule the trial court's finding if it is supported by competent and credible evidence. State v. Bristow (Dec. 22, 2000), Richland App. No. 00-CA-17-2, 2000 WL 1886228. In order to find an abuse of Stark County App. Case No. 2005CA00024 4 discretion, we must determine that the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 540 N.E.2d 1140.

{¶12} Appellant does not dispute the fact that his Petition for Postconviction Relief was untimely. A court has no jurisdiction to hear an untimely petition for postconviction relief unless the movant meets the requirements in R.C. 2953.23(A). State v. Warren (Dec. 14, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 76612; State v. Valentine (Dec. 7, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 77882; State v. Wheatt (Oct. 26, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 77292; State v. Gaddis (Oct. 12, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 77058. Revised Code 2953.23(A) provides as follows, in pertinent part:

{¶13} “Whether a hearing is or is not held on a petition filed pursuant to section 2953.21 of the Revised Code, a court may not entertain a petition filed after the expiration of the period prescribed in division (A) of that section or a second petition or successive petitions for similar relief on behalf of a petitioner unless…:

{¶14} “Both of the following apply:

{¶15} “(a) Either the petitioner shows that the petitioner was unavoidably prevented from discovery of the facts upon which the petitioner must rely to present the claim for relief, or, subsequent to the period prescribed in division (A)(2) of section 2953.21 of the Revised Code or to the filing of an earlier petition, the United States Supreme Court recognized a new federal or state right that applies retroactively to persons in the petitioner's situation, and the petition asserts a claim based on that right.

{¶16} “(b) The petitioner shows by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner Stark County App. Case No. 2005CA00024 5 guilty of the offense of which the petitioner was convicted or, if the claim challenges a sentence of death that, but for constitutional error at the sentencing hearing, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner eligible for the death sentence.” R.C. 2953.23(A)(1).


SCMedia1

SCMedia2
   

 

 

   
       
Of general interest

Congresswoman Wants DNA Testing Of Inmates By Courtney Zavala July 27, 2008 http://www.click2houston.com/news/17005404/detail.html


- Crime and Punishment in America; Why solutions to America's most stubborn social crisis have not worked - and what will, by Elliott Currie - Henry Holt, 1998, paper http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/Prison_Myths_CAPIA.html

- Backfire: When Incarceration Increases Crime by Todd R. Clear, Ph.D.  Florida State University http://www.doc.state.ok.us/offenders/ocjrc/96/Backfire.pdf

- Lockdown America - Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis by Christian Parenti Verso Books, 1999

- America's Corrupt Legal System - A Danger to Visitors, Travelers as Well as USA Residents by Dr Les Sachs http://www.banned-in-america.net/us-corrupt-legal-system-danger-to-visitors.html

- Broken Bench

In Tiny Courts of New York, Abuses of Law and Power By WILLIAM GLABERSON   September 25, 2006   The New York Times http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/09/25/broken-bench-exposed-in-the-ny-times/

- “The review also found that the quality of counsel puts defendants at greater risk of conviction and puts taxpayers in peril from lawsuits. The National Legal Aid & Defender Association, which conducted the study, described the situation as a crisis.” http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080713/NEWS01/807130359

- Our prison sentences are unfair to taxpayers and inmates; Article Launched: 07/21/2008 http://www.thereporter.com/opinion/ci_9949065

- “For their part, Ira Reiner (1984-1992) and Gil Garcetti (1992-2000), as district attorneys, spent their time sniffing the political winds and playing to the worst instincts of voters”. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-domanick6-2008jul06,0,353207.story

- Are Florida's judges for real? State, Local, Law-Order From: Volume 2, Issue 4 April 2008

“Attorney Jack Thompson says Florida judges were not legally eligible to hold office, citing a criminal violation involving loyalty oaths required by the state and U.S. Constitutions.” http://www.libertysentinel.org/issue.php?volume=2&issue=4

- Sense and Sentencing, December 14, 2007

“The court's decision sounds simple: all facts necessary to authorize a defendant's sentence must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, unless the defendant waives that right. Actually, this rule is a dramatic departure from current practice.” http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0CEFD91438F93AA15755C0A9629C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/S/Sentences%20(Criminal)

- http://www.extrajudicialexecutions.org/news/united_states/Press_Statement.pdf

-  August 22, 2008. No fatal mistakes, By Joseph D. Tydings: As a lawyer and former U.S. attorney... As a member of the Maryland House of Delegates and as a U.S. senator...  I now have deep concerns about the failures in our criminal justice system.. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/balop.deathpenalty22aug22,0,447580.story

- A state of unequal justice By STEPHEN STETSON, September 14, 2008 http://www.al.com/opinion/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1221383770231260.xml&coll=1
...virtually every county in Alabama uses the appointment system, in which judges select lawyers from a list and assign them to indigent defendants.