Emmett Mapp

Important points about Mr. Mapp's trial
from the editor

Point #1: Evidence was ignored
Mr. Mapp's conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, and no actual evidence.  The actual evidence was ignored.  According to the testimony of Criminalist Michele Mitchell, transcript of proceedings vol. 8, page 74 and page 105, there were 2 paper towels found at the scene, and she determined that the blood found on them did not match either Mr. Mapp nor the victims, as stated in the crime lab report.  In fact, she declared in open court that the fact that this other blood was found means that someone else was in that apartment bleeding, and no one, not even Judge John G. Haas, made a motion to have the source of that blood investigated.

The fact that someone else's blood was found on the evidence collected from the crime scene would lead reasonable minds to conclude that it is possible, if not likely, that this murder was committed by someone other than Mr. Mapp, constituting reasonable doubt about his guilt.

However, although his case was reviewed in the Fifth Appellate District by Judges Irene B. Smart, William B. Hoffman, and W. Don Reader, and in the Supreme Court of Ohio, and in the Southern District Court by Magistrate Judge James S. Gallas for a writ of habeas corpus, this evidence continues to be ignored.

Point #2: Perjury
Michele Mitchell testified on page 42 that she obtained the blood PGM subtypes from the tests conducted at the lab. However, those results come by way of the method of electrophoresis, and the Director of the Crime Lab, Mr. Robert Budgate, has sworn that they don't have such test capability.

Point #3: Perjury
In the testimony of FBI special agent Michael Vick, on page 120, he states that he used electrophoresis in obtaining his DNA results.  However, a letter from the FBI Chief of Scientific Analysis clearly states that they "discontinued this type of testing in the late 1980's."

Point #4: Unreasonable legislation
The opinion submitted by the Fifth Appellate Court in response to Mr. Mapp's appeal, which cited 8 assignments of error, overruled 7 of those assignments because of legal technicalities in the way they were presented, without making the correct assertions, even though they agreed that:

"The state failed to provide 11 laboratory reports and 2 narrative crime lab reports to the appellant."

"It would have been far better had the prosecutor given the list of defense witnesses to an independent investigator rather than to its own potential witnesses," and "we would characterize this as prosecutorial misconduct."

"...the evidence should have been disclosed during the discovery phase of this trial."

"...the State did not always perform appropriately in the prosecution of this matter."

Somehow the Fifth Appellate Court still came to the conclusion that this was a fair and unprejudiced trial, and denied his appeal.
They also concluded that it is not prejudice to try a black man by a jury of all caucasian people, because the definition of a "jury of your peers" is defined by what they consider a legitimate selection process (voter registration), rather than who the people are who actually make up the jury.


To Mapp Main

©2000 All Rights Reserved, IIAO