[pg 18] They think that the Unreliable Identification that was demonstrated at the New Trial Hearing in April 2004, beyond a clear and convincing standard, is irrelevant because it was not demonstrated on Direct Appeal. Never mind that this testimony was not available at the time of Direct Appeal.

Judge Russo's decision was based on New Information presented at the April and September hearings, not information presented on Direct Appeal. Ignoring this will leave defendants without a legal venue for the truth or justice in our courts.

They actually think that alleged gunshot residue alone could still support these convictions [pg 18-19] while at the same time claiming that they could have won the case in “early 2003,” but they were at a disadvantage “almost one year later.” [pg 17] 

You can't have it both ways, and gunshot residue alone could never support these convictions under the Ohio Statute.

Both the prosecutors and judges have failed to describe how the defendant could have made Tamika Harris contact us sooner to set the record straight.

Still, the truth seems to elude them, THERE NEVER HAS BEEN ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE TO SUPPORT THESE CONVICTIONS.