STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 36TH DISTRICT COURT 3RD CIRCUIT COURT CRIMINAL DIVISION STATE OF MICHIGAN Plaintiff, v MARK JACKSON Defendant. _____________________________________________________________/ Mark Alan Jackson, Pro Se 129 North Lowell Road Windham, NH 03087 313 478 8061 _____________________________________________________________/ DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE COURT CLERK’S CASE FILE AND “IN CAMERA” INSPECTION OF THE PROSECUTION’S CASE FILE Pursuant to MCR 6.201, People v Pruitt, 229 Mich App 82, 84 (1998) and Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83 (1963) Now comes, Defendant, Mark Alan Jackson, to move the court for judicial review of the Court Clerk’s case file and “in camera” inspection of the Prosecutor’s case file, excluding work product. Case No. 00-69257 HON JAMES R. CHYLINSKI
20
Embed
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR _IN CAMERA_ REVIEW OF THE COURT CLERK’S CASE FILE (10-7-10)
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 36TH DISTRICT COURT 3RD CIRCUIT COURT CRIMINAL DIVISION
STATE OF MICHIGAN Plaintiff, v MARK JACKSON Defendant.
Case No. 00-69257 HON JAMES R. CHYLINSKI
_____________________________________________________________/ Mark Alan Jackson, Pro Se 129 North Lowell Road Windham, NH 03087 313 478 8061 _____________________________________________________________/
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE COURT CLERK’S CASE FILE AND “IN CAMERA” INSPECTION OF THE PROSECUTIO
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 36TH DISTRICT COURT
3RD CIRCUIT COURT CRIMINAL DIVISION
STATE OF MICHIGAN Plaintiff, v MARK JACKSON Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________/ Mark Alan Jackson, Pro Se 129 North Lowell Road Windham, NH 03087 313 478 8061 _____________________________________________________________/
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE COURT
CLERK’S CASE FILE AND “IN CAMERA” INSPECTION OF THE
PROSECUTION’S CASE FILE
Pursuant to MCR 6.201, People v Pruitt, 229 Mich App 82, 84 (1998) and Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Now comes, Defendant, Mark Alan Jackson, to move the court for judicial review of the
Court Clerk’s case file and “in camera” inspection of the Prosecutor’s case file, excluding work
product.
Case No. 00-69257 HON JAMES R. CHYLINSKI
2
I. JURISDICTION
It has been and remains the position of the defense that this court surrendered jurisdiction
through due process violations and structural errors. However, in order to seek the intended
adjudication and relief, this court must hear this Motion, at arm’s length and by special
appearance, by the Defendant. This court stands as the last court of record where a plea was
entered. Furthermore, the Defense does not wave, nor has it ever waved these violations or
errors. The Defense stands fast.
II. FACTS AND HISTORY
1. On March 15, 2010, the Defendant received from the Wayne County Court Clerk [see
Receipt, Exhibit A, and Affidavit, Exhibit B] twenty (20) different documents in the case
file # 00-69257.
2. Four (4) documents were withheld from the Defendant by the Wayne County Court
Clerk.
3. There is a discrepancy between the documents in case file # 00-69257 and all other
documents known to have been filed in this case.
4. A Motion hearing was held on the Defendants Motion to Vacate and Motion to Dismiss
the Indictment on September 24, 2010 before Judge Chylinski.
III. ARGUMENT/PLEADINGS
i. WHERE’S WALDO?
3
1. In the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate and Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, the
Defendant alleged that there were several documents withheld from him and several
documents not contained in the court files. The correct procedure for the handling of
documents in the public file, is not to withhold them from public view, but rather, to
redact any victim’s information and make the document available for inspection and
duplication. Anything less, is a violation of 6th Amendment.
2. This concept, of course, excludes work product, which although a civil doctrine,
are documents made in preparation for the trial. Likewise, it is understood that similar
documentation is made in preparation for criminal procedures and in cases where a plea or
sentence is anticipated. However, this does not apply to all of the documents prepared in
criminal procedures. The exception to that is exculpatory evidence.
3. The question for this court is, “does that evidence exist?” It is understandable and
prudent that the court believes that both parties are acting in good faith to expedite the
judicial process and ensure that justice is served. The court cannot reasonably assume that
one party may act with malice until reason is given that proves malice on the part of one
party. If the court has no reason to believe that one party acted maliciously, then the
question of exculpatory evidence being withheld would never come into being.
4. The answer to the former question, presented above is, “yes, that evidence does
exist.” In the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate and Motion to Dismiss the Indictment,
several documents were submitted to the court which were not in the case file. This
creates a huge dilemma. Did the Clerk intentionally or unintentionally misfile these
documents? Is the Prosecutor holding them to the exclusion of the Clerk, which is
forbidden by law?
4
5. Without a doubt, two (2) Complaints for Habeas were filed on the Defendant’s
behalf and two (2) Writs of Habeas were granted by Judge Perry. Not all of these
documents were in the Clerk’s file. It is imperative to find out where these documents are
and if the Prosecutor has these documents to the exclusion of the Clerk.
ii. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
1. Once again, in the interest of justice, an allegation of misconduct has arisen and
the integrity of this court must be maintained concerning the possibility of prosecutorial
misconduct. It is essential, without prejudicing either side unfairly, to determine the truth
of the matter asserted. If for no other reason than to allow the prosecution the
opportunity to extricate itself from this cloud of impropriety, the court must move to
determine the nature of this issue at hand.
iii. ADMINISTRATIVE MISCONDUCT
1. And again, in the interest of justice, an allegation of misconduct has arisen and the
integrity of this court must be maintained concerning the possibility of misconduct by the
Clerk of the Court. It is essential, without prejudicing either side unfairly, to determine
the truth of the matter asserted. If for no other reason than to also allow the Clerk an
opportunity to extricate itself from this very same cloud of impropriety, the court must
move to determine the nature of this issue at hand.
iv. REASONABLE REQUEST
5
1. Judicial review and “in camera” inspections are not a foreign concept to the
courts. In MCR 6.201(C)(2):
If a defendant demonstrates a good-faith belief, grounded in articulable fact, that
there is a reasonable probability that records protected by privilege are likely to
contain material information necessary to the defense, the trial court shall
conduct an in camera inspection of the records.
v. QUESTIONS
1. The Defense has raised several issues. Should the court send it to the Court of
Appeals, the integrity of this court remains in jeopardy. The court must remove all doubt
that this is a court of laws. The mishandling or concealment, of these documents have
placed all parties at risk and must be answered for. No party should be allowed to
conceal vital or exculpatory evidence.
IV. PRAYER
The Defense prays that this Court grants this Motion for:
1. Judicial review of the Court Clerk’s case file,
2. Order certification and accounting for the file’s contents,
3. Conduct an “in camera” inspection of the Prosecutor’s case file,
4. Order certification by the prosecution that the files are fully intact,
5. Order all files, or in the alternative, copies as allowed in MCR 6.201 be provided to
the Defendant,
6. Sanction any parties directly responsible for placing the court’s integrity at risk.
6
WHEREFORE, the defendant moves the Court grants this Motion for:
1. Judicial review of the Court Clerk’s case file,
2. Order certification and accounting for the file’s contents,
3. Conduct an “in camera” inspection of the Prosecutor’s case file,
4. Order certification by the prosecution that the files are fully intact,
5. Order all files, or in the alternative, copies as allowed in MCR 6.201 be provided to
the Defendant,
6. Sanction any parties responsible for placing the court’s integrity at risk.
If the Court denies this motion, the defendant moves the court to provide findings of fact
and conclusions of law why this motion should be denied in accordance with MCR 2.613(C).
All exhibits have been attached to the end of this document and labeled. Some are part of
the original Court Record and some are unclear, but should have been entered into the Court
Record.
A. Receipt from Cathy M. Garett, Wayne County Clerk, dated March 15, 2010, for
20 documents, for a total of $20.00.
B. Affidavit of Mark A. Jackson Regarding Missing Documents, dated December
29, 2010.
C. Copy of the case: BRADY v. MARYLAND, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), for the court’s
convenience.
8
Exhibit A
9
Exhibit B
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 36TH DISTRICT COURT
3RD CIRCUIT COURT CRIMINAL DIVISION
STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff, v MARK JACKSON Defendant, _________________________________________________________/ Mark Alan Jackson, Pro Se 129 North Lowell Road Windham, New Hampshire 03087 313 478 8061 _________________________________________________________/
AFFIDAVIT OF MARK ALAN JACKSON REGARDING MISSING
DOCUMENTS
I, Mark Alan Jackson, being duly sworn, state as follows:
1. THAT I am competent to declare and affirm the facts set forth herein.
2. THAT I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, unless based upon best
information and belief, which I will so state if applicable, and will testify to their
veracity if called upon as a witness.
Case No. 00-69257
HONORABLE JAMES R CHYLINSKI
10
3. THAT I reside at 129 North Lowell Road, the City of Windham in the Rockingham
County, New Hampshire.
4. THAT on March 15, 2010, I went to the Wayne County Clerk’s office.
5. THAT I requested the case file for case no. 00-69257.
6. THAT I was handed the case file by the Court Clerk and was allowed to inspect the full
case file in the presence of the clerk.
7. THAT I handed back the full case file and requested copies of the full case file.
8. THAT the court clerk would not copy four (4) documents from that same case file.
9. THAT I was told that the prosecutor was withholding more documents, to the exclusion
of the clerk, that I could not view, by that same clerk.
10. THAT I contacted Paul Semperger, Bar # 20214, my former attorney, after my episode
with the clerk on March 15, 2010.
11. THAT I traveled to Paul Semperger’s office and retrieved three (3) documents that I had
never seen before, including one (1) Petition for Habeas Corpus and two (2) Writs of
Habeas Corpus.
12. THAT the documents provided to me by Paul Semperger in March of 2010 had never
been given to me before and were not in the case file.