Back to Exhibit 6

POINT C: THE PETITIONER HAS PROVEN THAT HIS RIGHT TO GO TO TRIAL, AND DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW, UNDER THE 14^TH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S.CONSTITUTION, WAS VIOLATED WHEN JAIL OFFICIALS COERCED THE PETITIONER TO ENTER INVOLUNTARY GUILTY PLEAS ON CASES FVA-06241 AND FVA-10530.

FACTS:

1. The petitioner has proven that: on the date of 11-18-98 he was beaten by sheriff’s deputies in the San Bernardino County jail (W.V.D.C.), where he was being denied to await trial on FVA-06241 and FVA-10530. (Aff. ¶, 30); that on 11-19-98 from 9:00 A.M. through 9:00 AM the next day (24 hours) the W.V.D.C. sheriff’s deputies strapped the petitioner into a restraint chair, naked, with pepper spray on his face and under horrible conditions (Aff. ¶, 30)
    

2. The petitioner also proved that immediately following the said abuse on 11-18-98 and 11-19-98, he was placed onto periods of long term starvation diets by W.V.D.C. deputies, where petitioner was allowed to eat only two soap bar sized bricks of food per day (Aff. ¶ ¶ 31, 34-36); that he was so hungry on these said forced bouts of starvation that he was often forced to eat toilet paper to assuage the hunger pains in his stomach (Aff. ¶, 35).
    

3. The petitioner also proved he was locked down indefinitely into 24 hour a day cell confinement and isolation in a small, dark, windowless cell with no sunlight or access to books or other mental stimulation (Aff. ¶ 33); and that insects infested the area and plagued the petitioner endlessly (Aff. ¶ 33). The petitioner also proved that this said endless combined inhumane confinement, oppression, and starvation made him “very depressed”, and that after the second, 8 day period of starvation, he psychologically broke and plead guilty to cases FVA-06241 and FVA-10530 so that he could flee the starvation and harsh confinement in the W.V.D.C. by concluding his cases as soon as possible, so that he could get away from the abuse in the jail (Aff. ¶ ¶, 36-37).

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY:

4. The petitioner in this case entered involuntary guilty pleas after over 6 weeks of frequent periods of starvation and inhumane confinement by sheriff’s deputies, of petitioner. The said starvation and abuse is what induced the said guilty pleas in the petitioner for cases FVA-06241 and FVA-10530.
    
5. “The voluntariness of [the defendant’s] plea can be determined only by considering all of the relevant circumstances surrounding it.” Brady V. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 749, 90 s.ct. 1463, 1469 (1970). That means that this court must apply the “totalarity of surrounding circumstances test” in this case. Colorado V. Connelly, 107s.ct. 515 (1986). This means that before the court can determine whether or not the petitioner was coerced into entering involuntary guilty pleas in this case, it must first consider ALL relevant evidence surrounding the voluntariness of the petitioner’s guilty pleas in these cases. This would include documented evidence, AS WELL as testimonial evidence from witnesses (which must be given during an evidentiary hearing). A plea may not be the product of “actual or threatened physical harm or…mental coercion overbearing the will of the defendant.” Brady, supra, s.ct. at 1470.
    
6. “After considering the evidence of police coercion and the defendant’s particular subjective characteristics, the court must apply an objective test and determine whether the police conduct could reasonably have appeared to the defendant to be coercive.” People V. Magallanes-Aragon, 948 P.2d 528, 531 (Colo.1997). The United States Supreme Court has held that in certain cases “deprivation of food” can educe an involuntary guilty plea by a defendant. Schneckloth V. Bustamonte, 93 s.ct. 2041, 2047 (1973); see also Reck V. Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 81 s.ct. 1541 (1961) (The court held that a defendant’s confession was obtained through coercion, after law enforcement officers gave him inadequate food for four days and inadequate medical attention). Schneckloth, supra, and Reck, supra, apply to the case at hand because petitioner in this case was likewise starved and deprived of adequate food, for weeks, and it induced the confessions in these cases. See Ridge V. Turner, 444 F.2d 3, 4 (10^th cir.1971) (court finding that defendant was coerced to plead guilty to “be removed from the’ hole’ [solitary confinement] and [to] avoid further beatings [from deputies working in the jail]”.)
    
7. Therefore for the reasons stated above, the petitioner has proven that his guilty pleas on cases FVA-06241 and FVA-10530 were unlawfully and unconstitutionally induced through inhumane jail confinement and starvation, and the petitioner thus requests that his coerced guilty pleas of FVA-06241 and FVA-10530 be VACATED and those said REMANDED back to the Superior Court for trial.