Milo Rose blog entry: http://betweenthebars.org/blogs/5296

MORE EVIDENCE OF RACKETEERING

In 1996, I met another death row inmate from Clearwater, Florida. As we spoke, I asked him if he knew the couple in my case, and to my surprise he did. He told me they were involved in his case, and that he had a deposition the female of the couple gave in 1985. I asked if I could read it, and he sent it to me. To my added surprise, the deposition contained the evidence I needed to discredit this couple's testimony against me. So I immediately wrote to the attorneys appointed to represent me on appeal, to tell them of my discovery. I was ecstatic, as I had just found the evidence that had agonizingly eluded me, and knew it would now exonerate me. But instead a pattern of racketeering began to emerge. I did not understand it, nor was I able to identify it right away. Until I began to realize I was up against a powerful influence that did not want the truth of my innocence coming to light. The first sign came when the trial judge refused all avenues to my being present at the hearing to determine if this newly discovered evidence warranted her granting me an evidentiary hearing. Next, I learned an attorney I did not know represented me before the judge. Making it easier for the judge to flip flop her 1987 ruling denying me an evidentiary hearing. This time ruling, even if she threw out the couple's testimony - which still felt to be creditable - there was still the eyewitness, and blood evidence. Which she reasoned to be enough to reach a guilty verdict. Once more denying me an evidentiary hearing on the guilt/innocence issues. I already knew this judge was biased against me when in 1983, she refused to grant me a trial continuance, unless I agreed to change my plea from innocent to temporary insanity. I refused, and she forced me to stand trial. I will expound on the prejudicial effect in a future blog entry...

After I got over the shock of the trial judge denying me an evidentiary hearing on the newly discovered evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, I reasoned the Florida Supreme Court would have to reverse her ruling, simply based on the face that she flip flopped on her rulings. Denying me the opportunity to show how the cumulative prejudice of the withheld favorable evidence prevented me from receiving a fair and impartial trial. Only the Florida Supreme court would not hear the evidence entitling me to an evidentiary hearing on the guilt/innocence issues. Because the attorney assigned to represent me maliciously strayed from the evidence. By telling the court during oral arguments, that my case was not a first degree murder, since I was drunk at the time of the crime. This surprised the court as it was pointed out by one of the justices that I had maintained my innocence throughout. Needless to say the court denied my appeal. Then more evidence in the pattern of racketeeing emerged when I filed a complaint to the Florida Bar, against the attorney who had sabotaged my case before the Florida Supreme Court. Despite the evidence I presented to the Florida Bar attorney, he sided with the other attorney. At that point I understood what I was up against, and decided to use that knowledge to build a record of evidence to prove a criminal enterprise of racketeers were operating within Florida's legal community. I am now presenting this evidence before this court of public opinion.
More evidence of racketeering in future evidence...

Respectfully,

Milo Rose