4 of 8: DOES THE 13TH AMENDMENT APPLY TO ME?
In my most humblest opinion I believe there’s absolutely no reason why government spending on corrections should exceed the needs of public schools. It’s like each inmate, or account, whichever term you prefer covers a correctional employees annual pay; which gives credence as to why most, “not all,” but why most correctional employees, institutional vendors and bail bonds agencies are so reluctant to support prison reform measures that seek to reduce the prison population by releasing inmates serving extremely long sentences, but have proven themselves to have been rehabilitated years ago.
The Preschool To Prison Pipeline is just one component of a longstanding sentiment aspiring to place blacks back onto plantations. Although the 13th and 14th amendments were enacted into law in the late 1800’s, the ideology of Lincoln’s killer(s) permeated far beyond the post antebellum period and showed its face through Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, Peonage, and throughout today’s jurisprudence via its practice of streaming blacks, and poor people alike through the judicial system without affording them Due Process nor Equal Protection of the law. This practice has resulted in an overcrowding of the U.S. prison system with an extremely disproportionate number of blacks who’ve been: a) over charged, b) unduly convicted, c) disenfranchised, and d) unjustly denied appellate relief on a state and federal level:
First and foremost before we proceed any further please allow me to say that by no means do I in any way condone the taking of a life. And with the utmost respect I commend all of the detectives, prosecutors, and judges who carry out the complexities of their daily duties with integrity, impartiality, and mindful compassion for all parties involved. Therefore, the purpose of this illustration is to simply show you how someone can be streamlined through the judicial system without being afforded the equal protection of the law nor the process that was due to them as defined by the State and United States Constitutions:
In 2005 I was charged with 1st degree murder by a trial court that did not abide by any of the mandates set forth in Michigan’s: State Jury Instructions Manual, nor the instructional mandates set forth by the United States Supreme Court or federal district and circuit courts in:
a) Berrier v. Egeler, 428 F. Supp. 750, 752 (E.D. Mich. 1975);
b) Berrier v. Egeler, 583 F. 2d 515, 521 (6th Cir. 1978);
c) United States v. Lofton, 776 F. 2d 918 (10th Cir. 1985), and
d) Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 691-704 (1974) which mandated that, “the Due Process Clause requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the ABSENCE of heat of passion on sudden provocation when the issue is properly presented in a homicide case.
What must be stressed at this point is that not every killing warrants a charge of murder. I know that sometimes we struggle with this concept, because whenever someone from the black community pulls the trigger they’re usually charged with first degree murder quick, fast, and in a hurry, with absolutely no regard for the mitigating circumstances surrounding the situation.
But whenever Bill, Bob or officer Tom pulls the trigger the process is drastically slowed down. The prosecutor and judge takes into account all of the surrounding circumstances and mitigating factors. Then they consult the corresponding statutes and jury instructions so that they can get a thorough understanding of the elements and legislators intent – making careful not to over charge. And after taking into account all contributing factors rarely does the government come back with a charge of first-degree murder. It’s usually something less.
So as I stood charged with 1st degree murder in Eaton county Michigan, the trial court, over my objection denied me the right to present a complete and meaningful defense. It’s imperative to the following section that I inform you that the right to present a defense is an inalienable right guaranteed to us all under the United States’ 6th amendment, and is integrated into the common law of American jurisprudence. Therefore, this type of error is what’s known as a structural error. Structural errors aka structural defects can be likened to the four legs of a chair; if one leg is broken then the integrity of the entire chair is compromised and it cannot stand.
THE TRIAL AND DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO PRESENT A COMPLETE AND MEANINGFUL DEFENSE:
For the purpose of clarification I would like to say that I was not charged with voluntary manslaughter, but I did request that it be submitted to the jury as my sole defense to the government’s charge of murder; along with the prosecution’s mandated burden of proof as required by the United States Supreme Court, and the trial Court agreed. However, after agreeing to the submission of this instruction on my behalf, the court took it upon itself to abandon Michigan’s mandatory Jury Instructions: “Use Notes”; which instructed the Court that, “If instructions on voluntary manslaughter are being given as a lesser included offense to the charge of murder, use Michigan Criminal Jury Instruction 16:9,” directly after the murder instruction, because instruction 16:9 informs the jury on how to apply the mitigating factors that would allow them to reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter.
The resulting consequence was that nowhere in the jury instructions did the Court inform nor even suggest to the jury that my sole defense to the government’s charge of murder was that the killing took place in the heat of passion in response to adequate provocation. Nor did the Court or jury instructions inform the jury that the Due Process Clause required the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the ABSENCE of heat in order to find me guilty of murder as mandated by Mullaney, Berrier, and Lofton.