 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg
Pennsylvania 15370-8089
Write Ralph directly or email him!
ralphstokes@hotmail.com
1 Freedom being able to go and do whatever you want.
2. My family, father, mother, brothers and sister who is the youngest of
al the children. Just being around them daily and all the small things we
think that’s not important. Me being the oldest of them and me feeling it
was my responsibility to look over them.
3. My mother and her cooking who knew how to cook everything just
the way I like it, to the point where if I was eating someone else’s
cooking, if it wasn’t cooked the way my mother cooked, then it was
cooked wrong.
4. Giving my grandmother a surprise visit and remembering just as I
turn the corner to her block that she lives on, I could see her before she
saw me, sitting on her inside porch looking out in the evening as the sun
was going down, and me remembering as I was getting closer to her
house, wondering what she had cooked for dinner.
5. Family get together’s and cookouts getting together with family
members you may not have seen all year long, and some even longer,
and you may not see again until the next family together or cookout.
6. Coming out of my house and standing on my front steps and looking
both ways up and down the block, and seeing all the little children busy
in their playing with each other and not a worry in the world.
7. My baby sister, who at the time I was arrested was about 1 ½ years
old, who is now 19 years old, and me missing out on this time to be there
for her like a big brother should. Also my youngest brother who at the
time of my arrest was only 10 years old (would’ve turned 11 years later
that year), who I felt that me and him was the closest of my brothers.
Who also was murdered last year on my birthday February 8, 2000.
8. Whenever I had a problem or something on my mind and just needed
to get away for a couple of hours to be by myself. I would take long
walks, sometimes to the park and take my dog, and before I knew it
whatever problems that I had on my mind were gone.
9. At least one or two Saturdays every month my mother and aunt
would get together early in the morning to go shopping and how they
would make me and my cousin go with them to carry the bags, and
remembering how me and my cousin never wanted to go with them, but
they made us go anyway. Also remembering at times how we used to try
and hide somewhere, but how they used to always find us.
10. Waking up every day and not thinking or worrying about the death
row and whether or not I’ll ever get off of death row.
LAST ROUND
You don’t have to be a boxing aficionado to understand the celebrity status Smokin’ Joe Frazier
enjoys in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and around the world. Millions of fight fans and those who
simply wanted to witness history in its making could ever forget the memorable fights between
Smokin’ Joe and Muhammad Ali, the Greatest. There were three bloody wars between them –
the most spectacular fight being The Thriller In Manila, and one that is forever etched into the
annals of boxing history. Years after he’d retired, Joe Frazier opened several businesses in and
around Philadelphia. One such establishment was Joe Frazier’s Restaurant, which catered to an
upscale clientele.
On a warm spring day in 1982, two men burst into the restaurant with guns drawn and
announced a holdup. When it was over three victims lay dead from gunshot wounds. The brutal
murders, which had tragically occurred in an establishment owned by the city’s most beloved
resident – sent shock waves ripping through the community. The police scoured the city in
search of the killers.
Young Ralph Trent Stokes, a 19-year-old black male, who was once a restaurant worker at
Frazier’s, soon learned that he was the central focus of the investigation. There was word on the
street that the police were going to kill him on sight. Fear seized him because in the city of
Philadelphia, the racist police murder young black men with impunity. Stokes knew he had
absolutely nothing to do with this vicious crime – so he immediately called his attorney and went
down to the police station. A guilty man would have taken flight – like the actual triggermen in
this case, Donald “Razor Jackson and Erick Burley”, who, court records show – made a hurried
hegira to Atlantic City, New Jersey, and New York City, shortly after the murders.
Stokes told the cadre of homicide detectives that interrogated him he knew absolutely nothing
about the crime, that there was nothing he could proffer. They assailed him with a fusillade of
verbal obscenities and leading questions, and he answered them the best he could. The cops’
angry interrogatories resounded off the grimy, graffiti-scared walls of the holding cell with the
fury of vicious attack dogs howling in the night. But they had no legal reason to hold the young
suspect, simply because he’d once been and employee of Joe Frazier’s – so they begrudging
released him.
He emerged from the police station, a proud and happy young man, thinking it was over. He didn’
t know the reputations and careers of the Philadelphia homicide detectives, assigned to this
case, were on the line. And he didn’t know they all were under enormous pressure from the
District Attorney’s office to quickly make an arrest in this case – and Stokes’ euphoria was short-
lived – on the basis of a statement from one of the actual culprits – the police stormed his home,
and tore it apart in search of evidence linking him to this crime – but did not find a single shred
or anything that could vaguely inculpatate him. They arrested him anyway, and in spite of the
absence of evidence – Stokes was charged with triple murder.
News of the arrest dominated the front pages of local newspapers for months, and it was
customary for the nightly news anchors to lead in with titillating details about the Joe Frazier
restaurant case. Before the commencement of his trial, the private attorney, who had
accompanied Stokes to the police station, abandoned him and the court appointed a pitifully
inept attorney to represent the defendant.
Defense lawyer Malcolm Waldron confided to his client that he hadn’t handled a criminal case –
particularly a capital case of this magnitude – in twenty years! He’d only litigated a handful of
insurance cases – and the complexities of affirmative defense and trial strategies were
unfamiliar and inauspicious terrains, he did no investigation, and he called no witnesses who
could have established the defendants whereabouts at the time of the offense. This was crucial
to counter the maliciously false accusations by his now co-defendant who seized upon the
opportunity to testify against Stokes. In exchange for a life sentence, and another, who was
given little or no jail time, they were eager to be the prosecution’s star witnesses. They would do
or say anything. One co-defendant was allowed unsupervised sexual liaisons with his wife in an
upscale hotel. He was supplied with illegal drugs and other amenities readily available to
pampered snitches.
They both pled guilty well before trial, confessing their guilt well before trial, confessing their guilt
to escape death – but they weren’t sentenced until Stokes was found guilty.
The trial was a farce, an alleged eye witness told the police that on the day of the murders he
couldn’t identify anyone, for how could he? They had on ski-masks, he told them, masks that
covered their entire face – and it was impossible to proffer an accurate description as to the
weight, height, or facial features. He couldn’t even tell whether the robbers were black or white.
His story changed once he got on the stand. Oh, yes that was him he swore. He was able to see
his eyeballs through the two small holes in the black ski-mask. Yeah, he was positive in his
identification of the defendant, he was, “the shortest one.” This witness told the police three
different stories of what occurred that day – and it was clear that the final version was
meticulously tailored to fit the prosecution’s twisted scheme. The state utilized unspeakable
tactics in insuring a conviction – and forgoing signatures on statements inculpatating the
witness, Donald Blackson, was cross-examined by defense attorney Malcolm Waldron about this
egregious misconduct:
Waldron: “Do you have Commonwealth’s exhibit number 34 in front of you?”
Blackson: “Yes.”
Waldron: “Did I ask you whether or not they were your signatures on page 1, 2, 3, 4, and
5?”
Blackson: “Yes.”
Waldron: “And what did you tell me about your signatures?”
Blackson: “That it didn’t look like my handwriting.”
Here, a prosecution witness admitted under oath that he hadn’t even endorsed the
statement accusing a man of being involved in a triple murder that inevitably sent him to
death row.
Then who did it? His pitiful inept attorney should have asked. It became clear that the
evidence against the defendant was deliberately fabricated.
Waldron: “Did I ask you whether you had a conversation with Mr. Stokes about the
incident referred to in that statement?”
Blackson: “Yes.”
Waldron: “About the things you said in that statement? And did you tell me that, ‘I don’t
remember whether I talked to him?’”
Blackson: “That’s what I told you, that I didn’t remember. Yes.”
Waldron: “Now, you were asked there today if you remembered a conversation on March
11th, 1982, Isn’t it a fact that you don’t know whether you had a conversation with the
defendant?”
Blackson: “Well, I went over my testimony, and from my testimony it said that I had talked
to the defendant on the day of the murders.”
Waldron: “Well, do you really remember that, to be true now?”
Blackson: “No.”
Any reasonable man or woman could deduce, from this portion of the trial transcript – that this
witness’ testimony was not patently manufactured, but perjurious. He was merely one player out
of a sickening sequence of tainted witnesses for the prosecution – like Philadelphia homicide
detective Robert Kan, who was under state and federal investigation for police corruption, and
tampering with evidence. Detective Kane testified that he was the central figure at the scene of
the crime, who collected, and preserved crucial physical evidence introduced positional
photographs and body charts of the victims. He was allowed, (without any objections from
attorney) – to testify about the ballistic evidence concerning bullets that were in no way
connected to the crime – though the jury was told they were. Kane swore under oath that his
observations of the crime scene and the critical evidence he’d collected there undeniably
established the defendants guilt – but documentary proof, recorded in police log books, clearly
contradicts this ridiculous assertion – because he was somewhere else at the time, and his
presence at the crime scene would have been physical impossible.
Stokes was barely 19 years old – one of the youngest defendants to be sentenced to death in
the state of Pennsylvania at the time. In a hellacious battle for his young life, the state was a
formidable opponent – and without a competent attorney – it was no contest. There are no
screaming crowds of supporters, no strict referees issuing stern warnings against the state’s
illegal tactics. This is his biggest fight.
This is the last round.
*Footnote
Mr. Ralph Stokes has been a prisoner of the commonwealth for 18 ½ years… and throughout
his appeal process the Philadelphia court-appointed attorney’s system, repeatedly appointed
attorney’s that have no interest in the case. Half of Mr. Stokes’ trial has never been transcribed
and not one of his part attorney’s looked into this very important fact, but submitted a so called
appeal. How can an attorney file an appeal without a complete record, secondly how can an
appeal court make a decision without a complete record??? Mr. Stokes needs the help and
support and attorney or attorney’s that are not into playing one had washes the other with the
Phila., D.A.’ s office…This is why Mr. Stokes is reaching tout to the unbiased citizens of the
productive society that he was taken away from. To learn more about the court-appointed
attorney system go to: abc news.com crime and punishment aired 2-3-00…Mr. Stokes also said
that he would like to encourage those who see this article to distribute leaflets (even if it is
copies of the article) in support of his campaign for justice. You might also recommend to people
that they forward the article and news about the brother to any friends/subscriber groups that
could also put his plea on their website and link to many other sites thought appropriate. He
would also like to encourage those who are able to get abolitionist and anti-death penalty
newspapers & magazines to publish his plea to please do so to help spread the word of this
horrific injustice.
Lastly, after all these years that Mr. Stokes has been incarcerated, he still does not have
sufficient funds to hire a competent attorney, your contributions are both welcome and needed.
So please do send whatever small monetary gift in the form of money-orders and those outside
the U.S. please remit international money-orders, to help Mr. Stokes hire a competent attorney.
It does not have to be very much, every little bit helps.
Mr. Ralph T. Stokes (#AY-9034)
175 – Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370-8090
(U.S.A.)
or email at:
ralphstokes@hotmail.com
P.S.
Please do read the following article on a study done by Professor James S. Liebman of
the Columbia University School of Law, titled; A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital
Crime.
ARTICLE FROM THE BNA, INC. CRIMINAL LAW REPORTS
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
ERROR RATE IN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT SYSTEM IS AT EPIDEMIC PROPORTIONS STUDY CHARGE
A report released June 12, by the Justice Project, a Washington, D.C. –based organization,
charged that serious error – substantially undermining the reliability of capital verdicts – has
reached epidemic proportions throughout our death penalty system. The report is based on a
study conducted by Professor James S. Liebman, of the Columbia University School of Law, of
1,760 capital sentences that were reviewed by courts between 1973 and 1995.
Major findings. From statistics on the number of capital sentences overturned in state post-
conviction proceedings, and federal habeas corpus proceeding, the report declared that during
the period it studied, the overall error-rate in our sentenced, 68 were overturned because of
error that substantially undermined the reliability of the guilt finding or death sentence.
Furthermore, an examination of 301 cases in which death sentences were overturned in state
post-conviction proceedings showed that 82 percent were replaced on retrial by a lesser
sentence or no sentence at all.
The most common errors, according to the report, were egregiously incompetent defense
lawyering, prosecutorial suppression of evidence that the defendant is innocent or does not
deserve the death penalty, and errors in the jury instructions. High error rates are not limited to
a few states; on the contrary, the report said there are geographically dispersed. Nor are they a
new phenomenon. Another important finding, according to the report, is that state judges, rather
than federal judges sitting in habeas, are the most important line of defense against erroneous
death sentences. Of the capital sentences thrown out during the study period, 90 percent were
overturned by state courts. The information in the report includes state-by-state breakdowns of
reversal rates and comparisons of the rates for states and federal courts.
Implications. When the high cost of capital proceedings are considered in light of the high error
rate, it is hard to escape the conclusion that large amounts of resources are being wasted on
cases that should never have been capital in the first place, the report said, public faith in the
courts and the criminal justice system is another casualty of high capital error rates, it adds. The
report counted 87 inmates who have been released from death row as factually or legally
innocent. When a condemned inmate turns out to be innocent, the report noted, there are
incalculable costs to the inmates, to the family of the victim, to persons at risk from the real
perpetrators, to the public’s confidence in law and legal institutions, and if the mistake is never
caught, to the wrongly executed.
Future research. The authors of the report plan to continue their research, focusing on
three questions:
*Whether an upside in executions in the last year they studied reflects changes in the
system’s propensity for error.
*What accounts for the high rates of serious error in the capital judgments, and
*What policy responses are called for by the problems in the system.
To access the study go to;
http://justice.policy.net/cjedfund/jpreport/
