TO: Attorney At Law
SUBJECT: Appointment of Habeas Counsel

INTRODUCTION:

Dear Counselor,

My name is Crandell Mckinnon. I am a condemned prisoner on San Quentin's Death Row. I have been stranded on the row since March 11, 1999.

Since that date my initial State Appeal has been finalized (August 19, 2012), and still I am without State Habeas Corpus Counsel. More accurately I am being denied habeas counsel. I have pursued relief through the California Supreme Court and the U.S. District Court with a Petition for Appointment of Counsel to no avail. Which brings me to the reason the constitutional merits of my appeal and correct the INjustice done to me. I'm confident the court will find there is numerous reversible and constitutional errors in my case but I need counsel who is fully competent to addres the gross INjustice I have been dealt. I am asking for your help and seeking your efforts in representing me. If you are willing to represent me, we can work out the formalities with the California Supreme Court.

Due to the serious nature of my situation I am anxious to move forward with my appeal because I am confident I will attain my freedom. I do not wish to live my life out on deathrow while C.A.P. (California Appellate Project) engage in procedural wrangling with the State. During these lengthy delays problems can arise regarding loss of evidence, demise of witnesses and destruction of crucial files. I want to avoid this at all costs.

To assure you I'm not wasting your valuable time I ask that you bare with me as I outline a brief synopsis of my case. First let me emphatically state "I'M INNOCENT", "I AM NOT GUILTY!" I did not commit these crimes for which I have been "wrongly" found guilty of. The court transcripts; police reports and other related documents will clearly show there has been a grave miscarriage of justice in my case.

A BRIEF SUMMARY:

In March 1995 I was charged with one (1) count of first degree murder. Then in June of 1996 I was charged with a second count of first degree murder. Both of these charges were subsequently consolidated, allowing for the prosecution to seek a charge of "Special Circumstances" (or the Death Penalty).

The evidence for count one is as follows:

A. No physical or forensic evidence linking me to the homicide.
B. Two (2) "allege" eyewitnesses (which I will refer to as W1 and W2) to the circumstances surrounding the crime, and one (1) other witness whose testimony was faulty and coerced.

The facts supporting my Innocence in count one include but are not limited to the following:

1. Prosecutorial Misconduct
2. The threatening, intimidation; and influencing statements/testimony of allege eyewitnesses (on audio tape) by DA investigator, detectives and the D.A.
3. Offering witnesses favors in exchange for damaging testimony against me.
4. Paid testimony by known informant.
5. The D.A. knowingly put on perjured testimony.
6. Wayward detective.

In count one I was alleged to have murdered a man for no apparent reason. W1, who alleged to be my co-defendant but an unknowing participant in the homicide, gave numerous statements to the detectives and D.A.'s office. He denied being involved or having knowledge of the participants. He was later threatened by the D.A. and forced to implicate me (and himself) in the murder (this false confession is on audio tape). Before bein told that he would be charged with murder if he didn't cooperate, W1 gave two different statements: The first; that he knew NOTHING of the homicide. The second, (after some pressure) that he was there but DIDN'T SEE THE ACUTAL KILLING TAKE PLACE. These two stories were not to the D.A.'s liking and the D.A. told him, Quote: You are either a defendant or an eyewitness: Unquote. This this SO-CALLED eyewitness revised his story and the D.A. excepts this new version knowing it was an outright lie.

W2 in the case was a paid informant and had previously testified in numerous other homicide cases for Riverside D.A.'s office. He also had a previous murder charge that was dropped. He was also pad for his testimony against me.

Both of these witnesses profoundly contradict each other in their statements. Their testimony does not coincide with either the facts, evidence, or witnesses in this case (witnesses who managed to mysteriously disappear at the beginning on my trail). For instance, both of these alleged eyewitnesses clamed to be standing under a tree in a field, yet both denied the other was there (there is only ONE tree in this field). Also, neither of them placed themselves within thirty yards of the tree. W1 CLAIMED ME AND HE RAN THROUGHT HE FIELD NORTHBOUND LEAVING MY VEHICLE BEHIND, WHICH WAS NOT FOUND OR SEEN AT THE CRIME SCENE NOR IN THE AREA. W2 said I ACTED ALONE and left the crime scene WALKING WESTBOUND UP THE STREET to by myself and him some beer, yet he also made it clear I was not aware of his presence in the field.

There was also testimony by a witness in my behalf at the preliminary hearing, but at trial this witness changed her testimony and testified against me due to the D.A.'s tampering and intimidation tactics. The witness NEVER made ANY statement claiming to have witness me killing anyone. What's of key interest here is that the D.A. IS HEARD ON AUDIO TAPE telling W1 to talk to this witness and get her to alter her testimony. I quote "I need her to say she lied at the preliminary hearing to protect you and because she's scared of Popeye (me)." Unquote. This is just one of many excerpts. Every key witness that testified for the prosecution admitted to lying, and that they awere under the influence of alcohol and cocaine and had not slept for days at the time the murder occurred.

As to count two, the evidence is the following:

A. No physical or forensic evidence linking me to the murder.
B. One eyewitness.
C. A gun that is questionable as the murder weapon and the individual who possessed the gun.
D. Jailhouse informant (who claimed I confessed to him and who received a deal of two years instead of, 3--strikes, 25 to life).

The facts supporting my innocence in count two include but are not limited to the following:

1. Destroyed evidence, investigative notes, witness reports and physical evidence.
2. Prosecutorial Misconduct.
3. D.A. knowingly put on perjured testimony.
4. Threatening of witness by D.A.'s investigators.
5. Wayward and perjured detectives.

In count two with the exception of one eyewitness report ALL of the evidence was destroyed. According to this eyewitness report; the witness, witnessed the unfolding actions that led to the homicide. He observed two males began to push each other; one of the males pulled out a gun and shot the other. This witness stated that THE SUSPECT WAS UNKNOWN TO HIM. At my preliminary hearing the detective who investigated this homicide occurred testified that the witness gave a description and street name of the suspect. He further testified that the name and the description that the witness gave him fir me; Crandell Mckinnon. But under cross examination he admitted that according to his own initial report that the description of the suspect DID NOT only fit me, but WASN'T EVE A BLACK MALE. Stubbornly he stuck to his testimony about the witness giving him my street name even though it had been over 2.5 years and HAD NOT been included in his initial report. At the hearing to have this case dismissed the detective AGAIN TESTIFIED THAT I FIT THE DESCRIPTION of the suspect even when his report clearly shows I DON'T FIT THE HEIGHT, OR RACE> he also admitted to never giving the witness in this case a photo line up or fully investigating the homicide, and leaving key pieces of physical evidence at the crime scene. The many errors in this case are monumental and just an honest look at my case would warrant your outrage.

For instance, the jailhouse informant gave a statement to the D.A.'s investigator about me after discussing my case and his confinement situation of tape. The information the informant gave was information the D.A. already had on tape for two years prior to his interview with the informant. The information had come from W2 in count one who said that it was ONLY street rumors (referring to me killing the victim). The information further claimed HE KNEW ABOUT THE VICTIM'S DEATH BEFORE I ALLEGEDLY TOLD HIM, WHICH WAS THREE TO FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THE VICTIM WAS ACTUALLY KILLED. Astounding, yet the D.A. knowingly allowed this informant to testify to this blatant lie. None of what the informant testified to was consistent with the facts, evidence or other witness accounts in this case. He also lied about receiving a deal from the D.A.'s office, both in preliminary hearing and at trial.

Now regarding the gun (the alleged murder weapon). It was found in another person's possession. She pled guilty to a weapon's charge, and according to the ballistic reports there was uncertainty as to rather the gun was the acctual murder weapon. The D.A.'s own investigator wrote him a letter stating that he (the investigator) was going to "make" the woman a witness against me, or arrest her for 32 P.C, Accessory to Murder. Both the D.A. and his investigator knew full well that this gun belonged to the woman. The D.A. chose to condone and engage in these ruthless bully tactics because without them obtaining a guilty verdict against me would have been impossible.

Another issue is the ineffectiveness of my attorney, who failed to call witnesses and investigate "Third Party" culpability in count Two, which the D.A. had evidence of.

Let me also add, concerning the street name "Popeye" (the detective claimed the eyewitness in count Two gave him). There were three other male with that moniker in the area where the homicide occurred, which is a very small community. One is African-American, and the other two are Hispanic. Witnesses testified during trial I was not the only black male in town using "Popeye" as a nickname.

As you can see, there are many malicious acts of misconduct that marred justice in my case. There is a clear and undeniable question of credibility of all the witnesses who testified against me. The D.A.'s main source of incriminating evidence. I have only scratched the surface to pique you legal interest and stir your sense of justice. If you can arrange a visit with me, and her me out, you can judge for yourself the wight of my argument. I promise the trip will bot be a waste of you time. I am aware you may be unable to take my case or arrange a visit. Therefore, I ask that you turn my concerns over ot your colleagues, associates, or anyone truly competent and interested in seeing justice prevail. I would profoundly appreciate any help you could provide. I apologize for the rambling and consuming too much of your attention if I have done so. I know you're extremely busy, but as you can see my need is exigent. Thank you, for baring with me, and again, any advice you can give me is highly welcomed. I look forward to hearing from you.

Respectfully,

Crandell Ojore Mckinnon #P-32800
CSP-S.Q.
#P-32800
San Quentin, CA 94974 USA

Date_______________________________, 20