|In the Case
Information Form, filed by PCD Detective Ellis on Oct. 16, 1997, the
Details of Offense section only contains an allegation of oral sex, with
mention of more than one occurrence, and no other allegations.
did they create four  counts of rape from this one allegation?
Yet, in the court transcript, pg. 20, assistant prosecutor Sullivan is asked to articulate the facts of the crime for the record, and states,
"On two separate occasions, this defendant had sexual contact, conduct with Crystal Power who was 12 years old at the time, and he had sexual intercourse with her and in the course of sexual intercourse forced, performed oral sex."
What is the basis for this exaggerated accusation?
According to defense attorney Middleton's affidavit, attached to his Brief for Appellant, in statement #5 he says,
"That Michael Sullivan Esq. Personally told me that the rape kits prepared at the hospital after the female was examined for evidence of rape and treatment was in the custody of the Cleveland police and was never processed for scientific evidence or DNA matches because the claim of oral sex lead them to believe no sperm sample was obtainable in the rape kit and he believes the police still had custody of the rape kit."
Then, Mr. Sullivan decides to object to this statement, claiming that it is inaccurate. So, the case is remanded to the trial court to rule on Middleton's affidavit. In spite of strong objections by Mr. Gaddis not to give in to the prosecution's schemes, Middleton fails to represent his client and makes a deal, and they change the statement.
They enter a Stipulated Statement to Supplement the Record whereby the paragraph now removes the sentence where he said that there was only a claim of oral sex.
Why would Sullivan go through all this trouble to change the statement? BECAUSE HE LIED TO THE JUDGE. Are we supposed to believe that he didn't see the Case Information Form?
We all know the original Details of Offense, and that he lied to the judge. It's too late to cover it up.
These conflicting statements
constitute a Constitutional Imperative.
views and opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily
those of the IIAO, however, wrongful conviction and
imprisonment are quite obvious.
©2002 IIAO Inc.