top of page

 

Wrongful Convicted Evidence

​

 

Part I

I just want to provide verifiable evidence to support my claim of a wrongful conviction. With this showing I hope financial assistance can be established to obtain the necessary variables for freedom!

 

Disclaimer: I will not name the alleged victim, anyone who has or does disclose her identity in a public forum is liable and possible will be sued. That individual was never given the opportunity to choose between placing her name in public or remaining anonymous regarding this situation. Since the State forgot to provide victims’ rights information I will address her as M.I.A., short for Missing in Action.

 

 

1.

M.I.A. called law enforcement on July 3rd 2005 to complain before she was kicked out of Mr. Griffin’s house he had hit her.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.

According to the detectives and police report, M.I.A. was kicked out on June 28th 2005; five days before calling police. She was escorted by law enforcement injury free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.

 

Mr. Griffin’s house needed to be vacated because the potential buyer desired to lease the home.

(Coming Soon....)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.

M.I.A. basically explained at trial she may have fabricated the crime of D.V. because she was unlawfully kicked out.

Click to see transcripts and email

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.

During the cross-examination of M.I.A., testimony was elicited where she may have been coerced to implicate Mr. Griffin of serious crimes.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once the evidence of M.I.A. being coerced was presented at trial, the Judge should have ordered an evidentiary hearing outside the presence of the jury. To ascertain whether the evidence being used against Mr. Griffin was or was not the product of some form of coercion. Moreover it was Mr. Griffin’s attorney’s duty to request the hearing when the Judge failed to do so. Hypothetically speaking, if the evidence was in fact found to be coerced then the outcome rather guilt or innocence is not a reliable outcome. In our criminal justice system, coerced evidence can’t be gaged by the jury because of its unreliability. M.I.A. was under arrest while on the witness stand at Mr. Griffin’s trial where the Judge instructed the jurors that they could consider the possible coerced hearsay statements to prove the charges against Mr. Griffin, in which the prosecuting attorney urged the jury to do so.

 

Simply put, all the State had to do was place a police report or other document describing a crime (without a true trial) to satisfy each and every element of the crimes charges against Mr. Griffin, that were all based on the out-of-court report(s) or document(s). For instance, during the investigative stages, representatives of the State extracted false incriminated evidence unlawfully. Then once the witness foiled to provide this false evidence in court the D.A. uses those unlawfully extracted evidence to convict.

********************************************************************************************************************************

 

Part II

FABRICATED EVIDENCE TO GIVE THE D.A. JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO

CONTINUE THE PROSECUTION OF MR. GRIFFIN

 

1. AFFIDAVIT FOR ARREST WARRANT AND COMPLAINT

On August 30th, Child Protective Services Investigator Pellegrino filed an affidavit in support of an arrest warrant and a complaint against Mr. Griffin. The affidavit details two transcribed voicemail messages left by Mr. Griffin on Ms. Doe’s (the alleged victim) cellular phone voicemail message center. The complaint charges Mr. Griffin of crimes occurring in 2005 and two counts of witness intimidation by way of phone messages; labeled as the first and last messages occurring in 2006. The charges in 2005 are unrelated to the two dissuading counts in 2006.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. MESSAGES USED IN COURT HEARING

The prosecuting attorney used the two messages to receive favorable ruling against Mr. Griffin all throughout the pretrial hearings. At a bail review hearing the prosecutor stated they have in their possession:

 

“voicemail messages which we have taped trying to dissuade her.”

 

“I do, they are August 15th and August 14th, and August 15th there were two calls.”

 

“….if he went to jail something would happen to her. One of his friends will contact her and kill her.”

 

“He was out of custody -- there was a witness protection investigation conducted at the time.”

At another hearing the prosecutor provided the following:

 

“After he was arraigned on the first cause and a no contact order was issued, and he still continues to call her, we have those messages taped. They have been provided to defense counsel, in which he is repeatedly telling her not to file charges, not to go forward with the case.”

 

“He mentions various gang members he knows. He says if you don’t go forward then nothing will happen to her, but he can’t guarantee that otherwise.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. PRELIMINARY HEARING: THE FACTS CONCERNING THE WITNESS INTIMIDATION CHANGED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING

The first count changed from the first message to a recanting letter M.I.A. wrote. The second count was after M.I.A. wrote the letter that Mr. Griffin left messages telling M.I.A. not to testify. All the messages were saved where C.P.S. Investigator Mr. P. heard them. The message detailed “not having to worry about Shy.” M.I.A. testified that she didn’t understand that statement. The preliminary hearing was critical to Mr. Griffin because at this stage, the Judge hearing the evidence considers what charges are dropped or goes to trial. Although that facts that bounded Mr. Griffin over for trial concerning the witness dissuasion also must be the particular facts that convict him. This gives defendants in California their constitutional right to due process notice of charges against them. Meaning, you can’t say that a person robbed a bank on Monday, the defendant prepares a defense based off of a robbery taking place on Monday then go to trial and change the day of the robbery to Thursday. As for Mr. Griffin’s case the fact were set and ready for trial.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. PROSECUTION’S CASE AND TRIAL BRIEF

The particle facts contained within the prosecution’s statement of the case pertaining to the witness intimidation charges are as follows:

 

I.   Once Mr. Griffin was charged he made M.I.A. meet with his attorney.

II.  Went to attorney’s office, told her to write a letter to drop charges.

III. M.I.A. did it because she was afraid of being killed, that Mr. Griffin’s friend Shy would kill her.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. TRIAL – PRETRIAL MOTIONS

At the beginning stages of Mr. Griffin’s trial, the prosecutor declared that it would not seek to introduce or use the recorded cellular voicemail messages to satisfy the dissuading charges.

 

 

 

 

6. PROSECUTOR’S OPENING STATEMENTS

The prosecutor opened to the jurors a theory that once the case was brought over for prosecution, on two separate occasions Mr. Griffin attempted to dissuade M.I.A. Mr. Griffin took M.I.A. to an attorney’s office to write a terminating letter that she did not want to go forward with pressing charges against him. M.I.A. wrote the letter because she was in fear Mr. Griffin would retaliate if she did not. After M.I.A. wrote the letter Mr. Griffin made numerous calls to prevent M.I.A. to come into trial.

 

 

 

 

7. THE 1ST COUNT: LETTER EVIDENCE AT TRIAL

M.I.A. was uncooperative in prosecuting Mr. Griffin at trial and was declared hostile. M.I.A. denied all of the witness intimidation case. But since she was declared hostile, this enabled the prosecutor to attack her with out-of-court statements. M.I.A. was impeached and the jury heard evidence that according to C.P.S. Mr. P., M.I.A. said she did not want to write the letter but she did because Mr. Griffin left threatening messages that he would kill her or have one of his friends (Shy) kill her if she didn’t. Investigator P. further provided evidence that a total of two messages were sent. Both were listened to and recorded. Evidence was brought out that one message was sent on August 10th 2006 and the other on August 15th 2006; M.I.A. wrote the letter on August 2nd 2006, eight days before the first message and thirteen before the second. Most important the C.P.S. Investigator Mr. P. testified there are no threats to kill on any of the messages. Although, the prosecutor forced Mr. P.’s hand into presenting inconsistent and false evidence. While Mr. P. was on the witness stand, the prosecutor attempted to “put words in Mr. P.’s mouth” by saying “M.I.A. received a phone call before the letter was written, that was not recorded.” However, Mr. P. clarified the first message sent on August 10th which he recorded off his cellphone, was alleged to be the reason why M.I.A. wrote the letter. Instantly the prosecutor claimed it was confused and blatantly begins to testify that Mr. Griffin had made threats to kill M.I.A. before she wrote the letter. But this threat to kill was not recorded or heard by anyone. Now Mr. P. supports this new theory under oath, the threat to kill was a phone call while Mr. Griffin was in jail on July 26th-27th 2006. (Jail phone calls are always recorded for reasons just like this, and there are no such recording(s) of Mr. Griffin talking to M.I.A.; all the recorded threats disappeared.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. THE 2ND COUNT OF DISSUASION MESSAGES NOT TO TESTIFY OR GO FORWARD

According to the prosecutor, after M.I.A. wrote the letter, Mr. Griffin left messages telling her not to go forward and not testify. The prosecutor made untrue inferences and used excerpts from the real message like, “hit me up” and “not having to worry about Shy,” which was received by M.I.A. on August 15th 2006. As you see there is no basis to infer Mr. Griffin told M.I.A. not to testify or not go forward. The prosecutor still presents a falsehood to the jury since they don’t have a clue what’s contained in the messages, “And he [Mr. Griffin] told you, if you testified, they would lock him up because of what you [M.I.A.] accused him of.” Nothing in the message made M.I.A. afraid, or think that Shy would hurt her or make her write the letter. According to M.I.A. the messages meant to her to call him back or meet up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. CLOSING STATEMENTS

In the closing statements, the prosecutor provided for the jury M.I.A. wanted to go forward with the case but was pressured by Mr. Griffin to write the letter. “M.I.A. was pressured by repeated phone calls; you know something bad could happen to you if you don’t do this; don’t do this; hit me up; “which came in while Mr. Griffin was in jail.” The prosecutor basically used the message with “Shy” in both dissuading charges. The message was used to illustrate why M.I.A. wrote the letter in the first charge and to demonstrate how Mr. Griffin attempted to stop her testimony and going forward.

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. JURY INSTRUCTION

The Judge granted the prosecution’s request that instructed the jury, it could use the out-of-court statements made to satisfy the elements of the crimes charged. Meaning, the C.P.S. Investigator statements concerning the threats could be used to convict Mr. Griffin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11.

Jury asked why the prosecution did not provide the tape recording

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12.

Jury instruction for witness intimidation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13.

Appeal issues raised by Mr. Griffin’s attorney

 

 

 

 

Mr. Griffin’s Opinion

Mr. Griffin believes the prosecutor offered false evidence that after he was charges with the serious crimes from 2005, he attempted to dissuade and pressure M.I.A. to stop litigation and later not testify; by phone messages and phone calls. Now this couldn’t be true since the first complaint charging Mr. Griffin with serious crimes was filed on August 30th 2006. Moreover, based on the surrounding facts, that theory is impossible because the letter was written on August 2nd 2006, some 28 days before being charged. In addition, the voicemail messages which allegedly compelled M.I.A. to write the letter was sent way after the letter was written; August 10th and 15th. If you recall, all throughout the pretrial hearing, the prosecutor protested to possess recorded messages of Mr. Griffin taped threatening M.I.A. and telling her not to testify, made when he was out of custody. When the prosecutor was caught being untruthful at trial regarding the messages, to save their case the dissuading evidence falsely changed from captured voicemail messages to phone calls made while Mr. Griffin was in jail. To ensure the conviction, the prosecutor impeaches M.I.A. with a false statement as though it derived from one of the messages. “If you testify they will lock me up.” The word letter, testify or a threat to kill isn’t in any message.

 

In a nutshell, the prosecuting attorney filed a false instrument and then argued a falsehood to multiple Judges and Mr. Griffin’s jury to demonstrate its theory; Mr. Griffin reacted by threatening to kill M.I.A. or have his friend “Shy” kill her if she did not write a recanting letter after he was charged with serious crimes. It’s hard to understand why this issue was not caught by the professionals. It’s insidious and cold. But that’s small fries compared to the fact that the District’s Attorney and its Judge lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Mr. Griffin on these serious crimes. The Law orders a reinstatement hearing when a case has been withdrawn, canceled or dismissed. Also, once a person has been arrested, the prosecutor has 1 year from the date of the arrest to file charges unless there’s new evidence. In Mr. Griffin’s situation, the prosecution, as you know, fabricated the witness intimidation charges and then used those charges as new evidence to support the reason for filing the serious charges that allegedly occurring back in 2005. As though that letter in 2006 (August 2nd) was to stop prosecution for the charges occurring in July 2005 when that case was dismissed and a year past.

 

 

    

Part III

It’s not unusual in domestic violence cases that the victim will not show up for trial. The D.A. would use former testimony in an effort to convict the defendant. Although M.I.A. was forced to attend trial, she provided no useful testimony for the D.A.’s case. The D.A. used its expert witness, a SART nurse (sexual assault response team) to provide a medical opinion that history received (statements) from M.I.A. was consistent with the physical findings. Meaning the nurse testified that M.I.A. told her basically Mr. Griffin committed various deplorable acts. These acts described was consistent with the evidence found at the SART examination. An expert’s testimony in cases like Mr. Griffin’s are equated to smoking guns in murder cases. The term "smoking gun" was originally, and is still primarily, a reference to an object or fact that serves as conclusive evidence of a crime or similar act. But we will now examine to conclude whether the D.A.’s expert truly received the history received (statements) from M.I.A. and did the D.A. lay the proper foundation to present those statements at trial. Although I (Mr. Griffin’s Facebook operator and director) believe the trial Judge helped the prosecution in its quest to convict. You be the judge.

 

 

THE PRELIMINARY HEARING

 

1. POLICE REPORT READ BY NURSE

During the preliminary hearing the prosecuting attorney examined its SART Nurse. The foundation was laid how the Nurse conducted a SART examination on M.I.A. as follows:

 

M.I.A. was accompanied by police and the police filled out the paperwork. According the Nurses’ testimony, after receiving consent to start the SART assessment M.I.A. was sent to the examination room. The Nurse performed multiple tasks. The Nurse conducted an interview, took vital signs, and drew blood etcetera. The interview is where the Nurse takes a statement called ‘history’ which determines how the examination is to be conducted. The important facts are recorded and placed in quotation marks in the Nurse’s report. This important information was used to determine what body parts were to be examined and what evidence is to be collected. The Nurse’s report documented findings and quotes from the patient.

 

At the trial the Nurse was handed her report by the prosecuting attorney while on the witness stand to recall whether the Nurse worked on the day M.I.A. was seen. The Nurse reviews the report and affirms she was there. The prosecuting attorney then questions the Nurse regarding what M.I.A. had told her that made her conduct the forensic examination. Please remember that the Nurse has been supplied her report, but requests for another report to read off of. Stating the following:

 

“Ah you know, if I could refer to, ah the police report that I made out?” (The Nurse is not an officer)

The prosecuting attorney responded, “I’ll show you a copy of your report, if that helps refresh your recollection.”

A police report was handed to the Nurse to refer to the statements within the report as though M.I.A. told her those statements directly. Testimony was presented by the Nurse as follows:

 

“When I’m asking a patient for History, um, I make notes, and anything that I feel is important I quote directly and I put in quotes on my notes at the time I do it, if you go to, um, basically, that is the story she told me. Obviously, she told me much more, but I can’t put everything down, so-- And basically….. (The Nurse recites statements of the police report alleging multiple criminal acts M.I.A. had told her.)

 

 

 

 

 

2. INSIGHT

Part: A

Now the prosecutor at trial desired to use its Nurse the same way it did at the preliminary hearing by providing testimony and forensic evidence through an expert opinion to the jury where M.I.A. told her information then the Nurse found injuries based on the information told by M.I.A., which was consistent with M.I.A.’s story. But under California Law the qualifications of an expert must be related to the particular subject upon which he or she is giving expected testimony. For instance in the defendant’s motion he argued a criminalist might be qualified to testify regarding whether a fluid is blood. The criminalist is not qualified to testify as a blood spatter “expert absent a showing of his special knowledge and training on that subject.” "There are few scientific studies which purport to correlate certain physical injuries with the conclusion that they were inflicted by sexual assault. As you will see the Defense preemptively attempted to limit the SART Nurse testimony by way of a motion because she was not qualified.” 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Trial Motion for the Defense

A SART nurse is a regular nurse working in conjunction with law enforcement to collect and preserve evidence; Sexual Assault Response Team. A motion was filed in the court by the Defense where it wanted to limit the testimony of the SART Nurse who examined M.I.A. The Defense attorney argued that the Nurse should not be allowed to provide opinion testimony that the physical findings are “consistent” with the complaining witness alleged statements of facts unless a proper foundation had been determined during a evidentiary hearing. Because the Defense attorney believed a proper foundation could not be laid since “generally most SART nurses have no training regarding the genesis of physical injuries to a sexual organ. While the Nurse can testify regarding the appearance of an injury she ordinarily has no special knowledge concerning whether a cut or bruise might be inflicted by consensual sexual activity other than sexual assault. Therefore, unless the prosecutor has laid the foundation about the SART Nurse’s training or knowledge of expert studies on the genesis of injuries she shouldn’t be allowed to offer an opinion that a particular injury is ‘consistent’ with assault. Moreover, it should be noted that any “history” related to the Nurse from the complaining witness must be considered inadmissible hearsay and should not be admitted into evidence.” The Defense attorney further argues that the Nurse’s testimony should be inadmissible at trial because it’s an improper opinion regarding guilt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Motion Litigated at Trial regarding Limiting the SART Nurse Testimony

In response to the motion, the prosecuting attorney argued the history or statements allegedly made by M.I.A. should come in not for the truth of the matter asserted (the statements should not be considered as facts) but to explain why the Nurse examined certain areas of M.I.A. The prosecuting attorney believed a limited amount of history is granted for that purpose. The Defense added, if the Nurse testified to a narrative that was given to her in the form of a statement by the complaining witness that M.I.A. was pushed on the bed and assaulted and that’s why the Nurse looked at specific bodily areas was unobjectionable, not appropriate and contained a lot of hearsay statements that would not be relevant for purposes of her testimony as a Sart nurse. The trial court agreed in part but the prosecutor reemphasized that as a medical professional documenting injuries such as a picture of a bruised arm was taken because the patient told her that she was grabbed by her arm and that should be allowed. The Defense attempts to rebut by stating, “The function of the SART Nurse here as a witness is to talk about what she saw and what she discovered not what caused her to do what or what information was relayed.”

 

Mr. Griffin’s attorney read the preliminary hearing which he believed the recitation of statements can’t happen at trial, he was trying to head this off at the beginning. The Nurse was not a criminalist and doesn’t make identifications, she had no expertize or authority to testify what could have caused a potential injury. Mr. Griffin’s attorney reserved his comments on striking the Nurse providing an opinion that the history is consistent with the finding of assault. Although the prosecutor positioned an expert opinion in this kind of case is completely appropriate because when there is no injuries in a sexual assault the defense will claim nothing happened. With the Nurse for the prosecution she can tell the jury you don’t always see injuries but in the findings the expert can still opinion it’s consistent with assault. Where the prosecution claimed the Nurse is an expert in sexual assault-related injuries. The Defense believed she was not an expert, which the Nurse was coming in to explain when no injuries are present. The Defense attorney reasons that he’s not contesting the qualifications of the Nurse as a SART Nurse, but when an opinion is given that the injuries view are consistent with the story / history given, it is making a valued judgment for the jury to hear that the Nurse believes that the complaining witness is credible and truthful. There needs to be a proper foundation laid for the Nurse to make that determination. Which the Defense believed that she wasn’t qualified to do so.

 

The trial court disagreed with M. Griffin’s attorney that a properly qualified expert could not testify to conclusions. A perfect example given by the trial court was an assault case where, “The patient said he was stabbed, the doctor looks at the wound and says, yes, this wound I saw was consistent with a stab of a knife not consistent with a fingernail.” The Defense further debates with the Judge and claims the consistency theory is not within the Nurses expert view or her training to make legal determinations, “consent on non-consent is not a medical issue. It’s a legal issue.” The court agreed but ruled that assuming the Nurse can be properly qualified and the proper foundation is laid she can testify in her opinion based on her training, education and experience that these injuries are consistent with the history. In addition to the Nurse, she can testify to observing injuries and documenting them. And to any history she received regarding how those injuries occurred. The Judge also ruled that it would not allow the Nurse to indicate any opinion that M.I.A. is lying; telling the truth; found M.I.A. to be credible. As a result the Defense motion was denied, again assuming foundation could be laid and the Nurse will be properly qualified. The Judge may have heard this Nurse testify before and states on the record, “the D.A. is going to be arguing she’s an expert. You should accept her opinion.” 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. INSIGHT

Part: B

Now during trial M.I.A. denied she was assaulted by Mr. Griffin and was useless for the prosecution. The prosecutor’s case hinged on the history received by the SART Nurse so the jury could hear M.I.A. in fact did allege that Mr. Griffin assaulted her. Because M.I.A. told her? However the prosecutions original intentions regarding the history was to explain why the Nurse performed the examination, not for the truth of the matter asserted. That’s in fact what the Nurse says and was using it to satisfy the crimes charged against Mr. Griffin. Although the prosecutor, and the prosecutor only, still had a hard job of laying the foundation and properly qualifying the Nurse to present this evidence in front of the jury.

 

 

 

 

 

6. Nurse Takes Stand to Testify

The SART Nurse testified that she was a Registered Nurse. Where the foundation was laid and the SART Nurse was qualified as a Nurse, in addition to claiming to be a Forensic Examiner, which is someone who collects medical evidence from any type of person alive or dead, for purposes of sending it to a lab to get evaluated. Now there was not any testimony explaining the training or education regarding sexual related injuries or domestic violence. However provides material on how the SART examinations are conducted. So the prosecutor believes the foundation has been laid and properly qualifies the Nurse as an expert. The prosecutor attempts to bring forth the full history which was being admitted into evidence as a prior inconsistent statement, (since M.I.A. testified denying the allegation against Mr. Griffin; M.I.A. is being impeached), and for the other reason of why the examination was conducted.

 

The trial Judge denied the prosecutors attempts to bring in the history after Mr. Griffin’s attorney objected to the issue as being not relevant as her purpose as a SART Nurse. The Judge then orders a recess where the prosecutor and Mr. Griffin’s attorney left with the Judge to her chambers; called a chamber’s conference, it was not recorded. When they arrived back, outside the presence of the jury, the parties were hashing out what specific statements M.I.A. denied making while on the stand. The Judge told Mr. Griffin’s attorney that he had to object now to anything else regarding the Nurse’s testimony because the Judge did not want to take anymore sidebars, stating, “ So if there’s anything else speak now or forever hold your peace.” The Defense attorney on the spot renews his objections to the Nurse testifying to conclusions that the complaining witness’ statements are consistent with the Nurse’s findings. The Judge granted Mr. Griffin’s attorney’s request again stating:

 

Judge: “As I’ve indicated in limine that as long as a proper foundation was laid that the Nurse would be allowed to testify to that. In my opinion, that foundation has not yet been made.”

 

The prosecutor’s response: “Your Honor, my understanding is I did that with the qualifications of the nurse.”

 

The Trial Judge explains: “let me – let me explain to you my opinion, then. You did qualify her as a nurse, 22 years as a nurse; that she’s been doing forensic exams since 2002; and that she’s done 90 of those exams. You did not lay any foundation or provide any information regarding her training to do those exams, her education in conducting those exams, her training and education in what causes sexual-type injuries. I can just read for you, for example, the testimony of a similar SART nurse from a previous case where she testified that she had been a nurse for 27 years. She had been trained in recognizing injuries of rape victims and had studied what caused injuries. She had 40 hours of classroom training and 40 hours of observation on -- and hands-on training which included spending time in an evidence lab and training with an obstetrician to learn how to preform vaginal examinations. She had been trained to recognize the difference between normal female anatomy and anatomy that had been injured. I’m just reading that as an example of the sort of thing that I believe is required to lay a proper foundation to express an opinion regarding the cause of these injuries. You qualified her as a nurse, but you haven’t qualified her as an expert in sexual assault injuries as yet.”

 

The Prosecutor states: “I will do that.”

 

The Defense attorney officially objects: “Your Honor, defense would like it noted on the record that we object to what it sounds to me like the Court is giving direction on how to lay a foundation for this witness so that she can testify to exactly what I’m objecting to.”

 

The Trial Judge responded: “I have no idea what Nurse Groot’s qualifications are and whether she has anything like this. I'm just trying to explain -- I am trying to explain my ruling, as I tried to from both sides. That is the sort of thing that I think that a deeper foundation needs to be laid. And if it’s not, I’m sustaining you objection. So I’m giving you the opportunity to preemptively make that objection because I wanted to deal with any potential issues. And right now I’m telling you I’m sustaining the objection unless a further foundation is laid. And I’m just laying out to you what I believe is required for foundation. It’s not intended to educate anybody how to do it, just what I believe is required.”

 

The Defense: “With all due respect, Your Honor, I feel as though you asked me if there was anything I needed to bring up now outside the presence of the jury. So even though it wasn’t properly timely, I brought up the issue I was concerned about as it related to our in limines motions and your rulings then. In doing so and ruling in my favor, you have essentially told the prosecution what questions to ask to get the information that I don’t want them to get in. And I feel that that is maybe not fair to Mr. Griffin because it’s, of course, the prosecution’s job to prosecute this case and lay whatever foundation she needs to make. When we’ve had similar issues and laws had to be presented from my side, it’s been on me to present the law. For instance, our issue over the transcript and the points and authorities. And even though it was my objection -- the burden is on the prosecution to lay the proper foundation for that -- I was the one that was asked to bring the motion with the points and authorities, even though I suggested that we both do it, as to why it didn’t meet the certain test that were required under the law. I didn’t have any guidance on that. And I in a way I feel as though the Court has just given guidance to the prosecution in how to get in exactly what I’m objecting to and not doing it at the time when the Court couldn’t do it because I wanted to prevent undue surprise or another break or another sidebar, which the Court indicated we couldn’t have. I did it because Your Honor asked me to now.”

 

The Court: And I was -- and I’m sorry if that’s the way you take what I’m doing here. I was giving you the opportunity to make the objection so that I could sustain the objection because I think that it is appropriately sustainable at this point.

 

If we had waited and you brought the objection, I would have sustained it, and I’m assuming that Ms. Cooper would have asked to be heard, just as she did here, and we would have gone to sidebar, and I would have explained at sidebar, like I think I’ve done on the bulk of my opinions, why I think the foundation is insufficient in essentially the same way.

 

But it’s not my intent, and I’m sorry if you see it that way, to circumvent your ability to successfully get an objection by me. I would have had the same discussion, I believe, with both counsel just at sidebar. And I wanted to do it since we’re broken here, not at sidebar, and ahead of time.

 

A document was left on the witness stand when the Nurse was seated to testify. Now the Judge permitted the Nurse to testify to the history received. Also to opinion the injuries or findings are consistent with the history of assault occurring. After the prosecutor laid the correct foundation and qualified the Nurse as an expert utilizing the Judges guidance’s. The prosecutor orchestrated a healthy campaign of specific statements at trial as follows:

 

Prosecutor: “Did she [M.I.A.] tell you that he was saying something before he would hit her? Looking at your last paragraph, last line.”     

 

Nurse: (as she’s presenting damaging evidence states) “Sorry, I’m on the second paragraph.”

 

Prosecutor: -- where he talks about -- he told her about if he ask a question. Do you see what I’m referring to, the last sentence of the first paragraph under “History of Events?”

 

Prosecutor: “Did she indicate to you whether or not he hit her at this point?”

 

Nurse: “I don’t believe so.”

 

Prosecutor: (damaging evidence being presented) “Can you look at the third paragraph, about the fourth line down….?”

 

The Judge would not allow Mr. Griffin’s attorney to challenge the Nurses qualifications. But was granted to do so before trial. However permits the Nurse to testify that she only conducts examinations on credible patients, over the defense objection. Where the Judge states on the record the reason for overruling was, “she [Nurse] is clarifying her examinations.” While at the trial motions the Judge ruled it would not permit the Nurse to elicit the patient was credible.

 

Nonetheless, the jury was never instructed on how to evaluate or gage expert witness testimony and expert opinions. Including the hearsay statements contained within the experts opinion. Although the Judge did instruct the juror’s permission to use the hearsay statements contained within the “history” to satisfy each element in every crime charged against Mr. Griffin. Meaning, the jurors could conclude a finding of guilt of all the charges just by the Nurse’s history alone. Which the prosecutor urged the jurors to do so. As an effect, the jury during deliberating the case requested:

 

                                                                   

 

 

 

The jury easily came to a guilty verdict on most of the charges.

 

​

 

7.  Appeal

** -- Mr. Griffin’s appellate attorney fails to present this issue on appeal.**

 

 

Analysis

The trial Judge placed Mr. Griffin’s attorney in a difficult position by forcing his hand at renewing his objection prematurely concerning limiting the SART Nurse’s testimony. The Judge abused its discretion and became prosecution favored by essentially fulfilling the prosecutor’s obligation of laying the proper foundation that their witness was qualified as an expert on the causation of specific injuries to ultimately testify to materials Mr. Griffin’s attorney had successfully objected to. Basically circumventing its own ruling, although the Judge is vested with a wide latitude to admit or exclude evidence. The prosecutor was the proponent that had to make a showing that their Nurse was skilled in the profession, not that the Judge specifically ruled in the trial motions the Nurse could testify to the prosecutor’s desires, assuming she could be properly qualified, of course. When the prosecutor fails to establish the Nurse, the Judge arguably accomplished the task for her. The records show that the Judge has heard this Nurse testify before but says she has no idea regarding the Nurse’s qualifications, wouldn’t allow Mr. Griffin’s attorney to truly cross-examine the Nurse on her qualifications. As if the Judge was protecting the Nurse because even with the guidance she still wasn’t qualified to provide the evidence she did at trial. (For more information see ground 322 Argument 2.) Equally important the Judge allows the Nurse to testify that she only conducts examinations on credible patients. When it ruled at the beginning of trial a statement like that was inadmissible. This statement was objected to and the Judge response was that the Nurse was clarifying how and who she conducts her examines on. It’s Law 101, that a expert cannot render an opinion that a witness / victim is creditable. They can only discuss the witness / victim as a class, supported by reference to literature and experience and does not extend to the discussion and diagnosis of the witness in the case at hand. This opinion may have given the history received and the Nurse herself an imprimatur of undone credibility on whether the patient or the Nurse examine is telling the truth. In effect usurping or talking the function of the jury out of the case. Because the jury is the finders of fact and makes the determination on whose credible. Most important M.I.A. did not tell the Nurse those statements contained in the history received. The Nurse was only interpolating other individuals’ information as her own. Simply put, the Nurse utilized detailed statements allegedly made by M.I.A. from another report, not hers, to testify as though M.I.A. made those statements directly to her. The jury wasn’t instructed on evaluating expert testimony and opinions and hearsay statements within the expert’s opinions. But the Judge allowed the jury to use the statements for far more than impeaching M.I.A. or attacking her credibility or medical purposes, they were used to convict.

​

​

​

​

​

​

********************************************************************************************************************

  • Wix Facebook page

 

Part IV

The Prosecution Misrepresented the DNA Evidence at Trial

That Produced a Breach in the Chain of Custody

 

 

I.

Nurse Signs as Officer to Take Evidence

The SART Nurse conducted the exam on M.I.A. and once completed signed as the police officer receiving and taking the evidence to the police station. In addition, the exam was not conducted inside a hospital.

 

 

 

 

 

 

II.

Nurse Signs as Impounding Officer

The SART Nurse also signs as if she was the impounding officer at the police department receiving the SART Kit, issuing a property tag number and placing the evidence in the impound room on July 3rd 2005.

 

Now the SART Nurse testified that the exam was conducted at a hospital and protocols for the chain of custody regarding the SART Kits. Where the Kits are stored at the hospitals impound room after the exam. Then an appointment is arranged with law enforcement to pick up the kit. The Nurse claimed at trial these regulations were followed in Dave’s case. But the evidence shows us here something different. The vital links in the chain of custody are missing. Unless the Nurse is a cop too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III.

DNA Request

On March 12th 2007 almost two years later out of nowhere a detective for the S.D.P.D. has evidence and request the forensic science section of the S.D.P.D. to perform a scientific inspection. A laboratory technician for the forensic biology unit added two more microscopic slides to the kit, and places it in the S.D.P.D property room.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IV.

Criminalist DNA Results

On March 26th 2007 a criminalist for the forensic science section performs a DNA analysis on evidence of new added slides deriving from the SART kit. Where the criminalist claimed the evidence was a linking match. At trial the criminalist testified that Mr. Griffin is very likely the source of DNA obtained from the kit; 1 in 4.7 sextillion a person chosen at random could be the source. But evidence was hidden from the jury that there was biological matter not contributed to Mr. Griffin or M.I.A.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Griffin’s Analysis

Mr. Griffin’s believes based off law and science that the criminalist errored in giving a statistical population frequency claiming it impossible that Mr. Griffin was not a match. When the law and scientific rules demand that all alleles must have the same matching patterns on each loci of the sample of evidence tested and the individual. When this lack of identity exist for even one allele at one loci, the defendant is exonerated. (The boxes being the loci, the numbers being the alleles.) As you can see in loci’s labeled 5 and 9 have alleles not contributed to Mr. Griffin nor M.I.A. So as a matter of science and law, in order to apply a statistical population frequency (1 in 4.7 sextillion) all the alleles must match and be inherently independently, such that an allele in one locus not correlated with the presence of a certain allele at another locus, once there’s a match then a calculation can be determined. The preconditions or the proper foundation of all allele in all locus matching before a calculation of the population frequency was not done in Mr. Griffin’s case. Meaning, the criminalist for the prosecution failed to utilize the proper procedure(s) or technique. Simply put, the D.A.’s expert testified that Mr. Griffin’s and only his bodily fluids were found in the evidence, and the chance that a person selected at random with the same DNA as Mr. Griffin is impossible. It’s clear by the evidence there’s someone else‘s DNA / bodily fluids, not Mr. Griffin or M.I.A.’s within the evidence tested. M.I.A. claimed to have engaged in relations with someone after being with Mr. Griffin, but before going to the examination. In which Mr. Griffin’s attorney had knowledge of. In which he used the possible 3rd party in his trial motions, but failed to hire an expert to analysis the evidence. Furthermore, the examine was not conducted at a hospital as testified to, nor was the proper procedures applied to the SART kit as testified to by the Nurse, which the jury knew none of this. Had Mr. Griffin been represented by adequate Counsel, any evidence deriving from the exam on July 5th 2005, would have been disputed until the D.A. brought forth the proper chain of custody, then provided expert testimony with the other source to support the claim of a 3rd party.

 

I am currently seeking to find a pro bono attorney, investigator and pathologist. I am soliciting help from an experienced investigator who would be able to obtain phone records as well as text messages from an old cellphone account. This would show that I, Mr. Griffin and the alleged victim were in two separate places when the alleged crime(s) took place. During the trial my attorney was unwilling and refused to obtain these documents. I am also seeking an experienced pathologist to give a second opinion on the San Diego District Attorney's SART nurse examination regarding the alleged victim’s injuries. If you are someone who could refer me to any experienced pro-bono attorney that would lead me to my freedom please inform myself immediately.

 

If you would like to contribute to Mr. Griffins financial legal needs, please select the ‘PayPal Donations’ tab, no contribution is too small. If you are a professional and wish to see Mr. Griffins full claim, please feel free to send me a message and I would be more than willing to release the document(s).

The prosecution doesn’t remember and claims there was no litigation on the matter from July 2005 but Mr. Griffin was arrested at Mission Beach on July 4th 2005 for serious crimes. Mr. Griffin posted a $200,000.00 bail and days later went to court represented by the Public Defender’s Office, where Mr. Griffin’s father and M.I.A. attended. The Judge dropped the case because there was insufficient evidence, no D.N.A. he tried the D.A. Office, the Courthouse and the Public Defender’s Office and no one has any reference regarding what Mr. Griffin is relating to; Mr. Griffin has copies of the arrest on the 4th of July, the copy of the bail bond and a copy with the original D.A.’s case number (R.R. not ABV) alongside the court date in 2005. Even without the dismissed evidence, under the California Law the State had to file charges against Mr. Griffin before July 4th 2006. That’s why fabricated charges had to be established. In 2004 Mr. Griffin was shot and was supposed to be a witness for the D.A. concerning those charges but charges weren’t filed or dropped but once Mr. Griffin left them hanging, the resurrection of the serious charges begin. Mr. Griffin does not want revenge, just redemption made whole.

 

 

 

 

 

*********************************************************************************************************************************

 

#1. For the read-backs on the preliminary hearing testimony of the Nurse and the history. #2. The history taken at the exam. 

#3. The Nurse’s trial testimony and history again received at the exam.

 

PayPal ButtonPayPal Button
bottom of page