| |
What Sarokin Says... |
The Prosecutor's Reponse |
| IDENTIFICATION
OF DEFENDANT CARTERS 1966 DODGE CAR |
There is nothing in the police
reports to indicate that Valentine identified the car at the
scene |
The police report said that
when Valentine saw the car when it was brought to the scene,
she "became hysterical." Pat Valentine says she identified
it at the scene, in the police garage and picked it out of a
book of car photos. |
|
Valentine mis-identified the
car as a Dodge Monaco, instead of a Dodge Polara |
Valentine testified that she
did not know the difference between a Monaco and a Polara, but
she was sure the getaway car and the Carter's car were the same. |
|
In the 1967 trial, Valentine
called the rear of Carter's car "similar" to the car
that she saw, but in 1976 trial she said it was identical |
In fact it was not Valentine
but a defense attorney in 1967 trial who used the word "similar"
in asking her if the getaway car looked "similar" to
Carter's car. She said yes. |
|
Bello must not have precisely
identified the getaway car because the police radio call did
not mention the out-of-state plates or the taillights |
It was Bello's on-the-spot
mention of the out-of-state plates and the taillights to Officer
Capter that caused Capter to go out looking for Carter's car,
which he had stopped about 10 minutes after the crime. |
|
The police chased and stopped
other white cars after the shootings |
None of the other white cars
had out-of-state plates. |
| THE
SHOTGUN SHELL AND BULLET |
The vouchering delay for the
bullet and the shell proves that the shell came from the Holloway
murder |
There was a handgun bullet
in the car. The Holloway murder was committed with a shotgun. |
|
The ammo in the car did not
"match" the ammo that was used in the Lafayette murders |
A ballistics expert testified
that two different kinds of ammo were used in the murders. The
ammo in the car could indeed have been loaded into the weapons
used in the murders. |
| MOVEMENTS
OF THE DEFENDANTS AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS |
Ignores the evidence regarding
the route traveled by the Dodge and does not make any reference
to a diagram in which the prosecution presents the route of travel |
The Dodge went onto 12th Avenue
at 2:34. It must have stopped somewhere because it was seen by
Valentine at the time of the murders and not seen again until
then. The car went from the Lafayette Grill murder scene to the
Nite Spot to Eddie Rawls' house on E. 28th Street. |
|
Officer Capter "chased"
a white car out of town. |
Capter did not "chase"
the car. Because it was from out of state and presumably headed
out of town, Capter tried to intercept it by cutting it off at
a bridge leading to the next town. When he got to the bridge,
there were no other cars on the road. Capter indicated that the
car he saw speeding down 12th Avenue looked the same as the Carter
car when he stopped it. Also, the defense admitted that Carter's
car was traveling down 12th Avenue, but minutes later. |
| SEARCH
FOR GUNS |
The search for the guns might
have happened even before Carter had heard about the murder of
Holloway |
Sworn testimony shows that
some time after hearing about the murder of Holloway and discussing
"shaking" (retaliation), Carter went looking for his
weapons, which he had been missing for quite some time. |
|
There is no evidence that
Carter found his guns. |
The fact that Carter searched
for the guns only after discussing retaliation for the Holloway
murder shows his intention to take revenge, whether with his
own guns or with some other guns. |
| THE
STATEMENTS OF THE DEFENDANTS |
Lieutenant DeSimone's testimony
on Carter's account of his whereabouts cannot be believed for
some reason |
Sarokin gives more weight
to the claims of Carter, a convicted criminal with his freedom
at stake who did not take the stand, than those of Lt. DeSimone. |
|
Incorrectly refers to the
NJ Supreme Court's critcism of the admissibility of DeSimone's
notes |
The NJ court was concerned
with the notes because of an issue related to the first trial,
not to the second. Since Sarokin is mostly focusing on the second
trial, his reference to the NJ court is misleading |
|
Even while shifting gears
and referring to the first trial, Sarokin ignores testimony in
the first trial from a rebuttal witness |
The witness contradicted Artis'
claim of his whereabouts |
| STRUCTURING
AND SUBMITTING A FALSE ALIBI |
Welton Deary, one of the original
alibi witnesses who recanted, cannot be believed because he had
become a police officer |
Deary's testimony was an admission
that he had committed a FELONY in the first trial; why would
he go out of his way to make such an admission? |
|
Anna Brown perjured herself
to help her daughter marry a policeman |
Being the mother of a woman
who is engaged to a policeman (Anna Brown) is not sufficient
motivation to lie on the stand. |
|
According to precedent, a
fabricated alibi does not lessen the prosecution's burden of
proof |
That particular precedent
is inappropriate for this case because there is much other evidence
that helps the prosecution meet its burden of proof. |
| THE
REVENGE MOTIVE |
The taped interview with Bello
in which DeSimone first mentions the revenge motive, was brought
up by the prosecution |
The tape was first played
by the defense. Now the defense is claiming that the prosecution
shouldn't have used the theory in its arguments. The defense
wants it both ways |
|
There is no evidence that
Carter knew a white man had killed Holloway |
The news had spread quite
fast. According to Artis, it was the first thing he and Carter
discussed upon meeting that night. Also, why would they talk
of "shaking" if they didn't know that a white man had
been the killer? |
|
Carter was just reaching the
peak of his career, which backs up his claim that he had too
much to lose by committing a crime |
Carter's career was in decline |
|
Artis was considering a college
scholarship at the time of the murders |
There is no evidence that
any such scholarship existed. In fact Artis testified that he
had been unemployed for some time and that he was about to be
drafted. |
|
There was no motive to shoot
a "stranger" such as James Oliver |
James Oliver was not just
any stranger; he was a bartender who had a reputation for bigotry,
a "perfect target" given the circumstances of the Holloway
murder. |
|
The only "blatantly racial
statement" in the trial was Bello's testimony that a detective
referred to "niggers and animals." |
Bello recanted these statements.
Also, Sarokin does not mention that these statements were placed
into evidence by the defense, not the prosecution. |
| THE
IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANTS |
Bello's testimony was not
believable and was the "pillar" of the case |
Bello's testimony was not in fact the "pillar" of
the case. However, if Sarokin thinks it was, he should believe
Bello.
- Bello was rigorously cross-examined.
- Bello was at the scene just after the murders and described
the getaway car and the murderers.
- Bello was seen by Rocky Ruggerio running down Lafayette street
with a white car behind him.
- Bello never changed the story he told in open court; his
various recantations, however, did contradict each other.
- Bello's story of how he came to give his recantation in response
to a bribe offer is credible and supported by other testimony,
which Sarokin ignores.
- Judge Larner ruled on the recantation (he said it lacked
the ring of truth), a ruling ignored by Sarokin.
|
|
Accepts Bello's "I was
in the bar" story |
Testimony in the 1976 trial
proves that Carter's agents were responsible for soliciting this
story |
| LEGAL
ISSUES SURROUNDING THE REVENGE MOTIVE |
Disregards eleven previous
courts' rulings about the revenge motive. |
- The motive was not even allowed until the trial had been
well under way and the judge had a "sense" of the issue.
- Prosecution had notified the court and the defense before
the trial.
- There were two blacks on the jury, which had been given an
extensive voir dire and was from a another county.
- The revenge issue was raised by the defense, not the prosecution,
which had not given its position on the motive.
- The evidence itself showed something besides robbery was
the motive.
|
|
The prosecution made an appeal
to racism |
If so, and the jurors suddenly
became racists because of the prosecution, why didn't the two
black jurors' racism negate that of the whites? |
|
Because "shaking"
is not specifically identified as murder, it could not have been
part of the motive for the murders |
Except for the murders in
the Lafayette, there was no other act committed that night that
could be construed as retaliation for the Holloway murder |
|
Motive requires the jury to
believe that "blacks in general" commit murder as a
matter of routine when one of their own is murdered. |
Prosecution made no such claim,
and Sarokin does not cite any evidence that they did, or that
they tried to plant the idea in the jurors' minds. No previous
court had ever supported that claim |
|
There is some "unarticulated
assumption" that Eddie Rawls was instrumental in the murders. |
Sarokin does not state what
exactly was wrong with that assumption. |
|
Singles out a remark by the
prosecutor that "we do not live in an ideal world free from
racial prejudice...some blacks and some whites violated the law..."
as inflammatory. |
Sarokin singles out this one
remark, but does not mention that the summation by Carter's defense
attorney used extremely inappropriate and inflammatory terms. |
| POLYGRAPH
RESULTS |
The prosecution's disclosing
of the preliminary oral report of the Harrelson polygraph examination
of Bello would have helped the defense in presenting their case |
The report would have shown
that Bello told the truth about seeing Carter and Artis with
guns in their hands outside the Lafayette right after the murders |
|
The failure to disclose Harrelson's
oral report of the polygraph constituted concealment of evidence. |
The prosecution had not even
accepted the oral report--it was understood that the official
results would be a written report. In addition, the defense argued
that Harrelson was manipulated by the prosecution when in fact
he had testified about the test and the report, and was subject
to cross-examination. Also, after the Harrelson report turned
out to be so confusing, the prosecution hired ANOTHER polygraph
expert (Arther) to remove their doubts. |
| WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS |
Grants a writ of Habeas Corpus |
Habeas corpus principle states
that a conviction must stand unless there was a complete miscarriage
of justice. The conviction of Carter and Artis was just given
the evidence against them. |
