Nightmare Justice

Montgomery County Pennsylvania's Version of Justice, Is my summary of a Nightmare!

In June of 1988, I was convicted in federal court of violating the civil rights of a government witness (killing an informant). A few months later I was convicted in the State court of killing another person who was supposed to be providing information to the police about the federal murder.

In 1990 the federal murder was overturned on appeal and dismissed. Since I was acquitted of that charge and the state had used alot of evidence from the federal case in the state murder trial, they were forced to give me a new trial. However, over my objections, the jury was still told about the federal murder; but they were never told that I was acquitted of it. The court gave a inadequate limited instruction, hoping to get away with the prejudicial testimony. it worked, I was again convicted and sentenced to death in August of 1991.

In June 1996 the State Supreme Court upheld my conviction but reversed the death sentence because the prosecution used "victim impact" testimony which was illegal at the time because it had not become law yet in Pennsylvania.

In June of 1997 I had a new sentencing hearing, before a different judge and a new jury, and again I was sentenced to death.

The trial judge in the first two trials was a cold blooded racist. Church members in the black community, in Norristown, Pa marched and rallied in front of the courthouse to have him removed from the bench because of racial comments he made from the bench on several occasions. I used that evidence to convince him to "recuse" himself from my case, but not before two trials during which he made crucial rulings that had a bearing on those trials and have become "law of the case", which will effect any future litigation, so I am still haunted by his prejudice.

My lawyer for the first two trials was grossly ineffective and along with the trial judge was an extension of the prosecution. The following is a verbatim statement I made at my formal sentencing hearing on July 23, 1997: "The prosecution made a big deal in the press about how 36 jurors voted for death in the three proceedings in regard to this case, however he failed to mention how the deck was stacked against me every time by excluding and denying blacks from serving on those juries and the illegal tactics used to get the convictions and sentences. There were no blacks what-so-ever on the jury, in this most recent lynch mob. Eleven whites and one Philippine composed the jury. Only one served on the prior jury and there were two on the first.

The "Times Herald" newspaper a.k.a. "Prosecutor Gazette" which has been the official personal spokesperson for the prosecution throughout the years in regard to my case, is always quick to praise the prosecution for their victories, but fail to inform the public of how these victories are obtained. They never inform the public of the make-up of the lynch-mobs that are rounded up to decide my fate, the number of blacks in the panel to select from or the tactics used to get these convictions and sentences, for example: In the most recent sentencing hearing or trial, the prosecution was denied by the State Supreme Court to use victim impact testimony. Since the prosecutor couldn't get this highly prejudicial testimony in the front door, he slid it through the back door. The victim's parents were in the courtroom, as they had every right to be. The father was sitting there in a wheel-chair with tubes sticking out of his nose and head. The prosecutor, pointing to the helpless couple, asked me, "Do you remember Linda's parents?" The question had no legal significance and was only designed and calculated to instill fixed bias and hostility in the minds of the jury towards me. The comment was directed to passion and prejudice, rather than to an understanding of the facts of the law. After that diabolically staged event, there was no way a jury could decide the case objectively. The trial judge didn't attempt to cure this act by giving instruction to the jury, like a neutral arbitrator normally does, he just let it go. Not that any instruction would have been adequate to eliminate the prejudicial effects of such a statement, the damage was already done. The prosecutor's desire to win at all costs, obviously clouded his vision on the difference between striking hard blows and foul blows and when the court allowed this conduct to go on, the trial judge was in conflict with every other state and federal judge in the country. Ultimately, the jury was sidetracked from its proper performance of its duty, that it was in violation of due process of law. It's well established that the prosecutor, especially in capital cases, has a heightened duty to refrain from conduct designed to inflame the sentencing jury's passions and prejudices and considering the clear and prejudicial impact of that comment, it had to have a bearing upon my right to a fair sentencing proceeding.

The "Times Herald" selectively chose not to inform the public of this, nor of the fact that there were no blacks on the jury. Another very disturbing thing occurred during the half-hour between the time the jury reached a verdict and the time that they announced it. There were reports that the jury was celebrating about their verdict, just minutes before they appeared in court to announce it. I believe in freedom of speech, etc. as most of us do, but how can the media condemn the black community for cheering after the O.J. verdict in the criminal trial, while the same time ignoring the fact that a essentially all white jury, laughed, joked and celebrated after they had just agreed to execute me. In my view, it basically shows their lynch mob mentality and what Montgomery County is really about, racial prejudice and hatred of blacks and has no intention what-so-ever to stamp out the virus of racism, but I'm not surprised, Montgomery is morally corrupt and has always believed it doesn't have to abide by the state or federal constitution. The exclusion of blacks from the jury and prejudicial comments by the prosecutor so infected the proceedings with unfairness, as to make the sentence a denial of due process. That is essential to the administration of justice. The integrity of the entire judicial system in this country and more specifically the county is in serious questions, but this is to be expected, after all it was a white victim and obviously I'm a black defendant, so the beat goes on...

The lawyer who was appointed to my case for the recent sentencing hearing was not allowed to argue any facts in regard to my innocence because my conviction was upheld by the State Supreme Court. The jury was told that they had to accept the fact that I was convicted and their only function was to decide on a life or death sentence. They were also told that I've been incarcerated for the last ten years. I think my lawyer did well in proving that the Commonwealth hadn't proven the aggravating circumstance, but due to the make-up of the jury, I don't feel that they were receptive. I don't feel the lawyer did so well in presenting other issues for appeal. I also feel it was wrong or at least unethical for him to make a confession for me. I have maintained my innocence from the very beginning and have never told him or anyone else, nor authorized him to tell anybody that I killed anybody. I was shocked in his closing argument that I didn't kill the victim to silence her, but did it because of a domestic dispute. I doubt if I have any legal argument against his action, because of the trial judge always instructs the jury that the opening and closing argument of the lawyers isn't considered as evidence. Plus the lawyer is allowed to use his own strategy to a certain extent, but it makes me wonder whose side he was on.

Some may think my statement prior to formal sentencing was harsh, bitter and critical, however I found it necessary to point out how this most recent death sentence was obtained. I'd also like to mention that just minutes before I read that statement to the court, the prosecutor made a statement on behalf of the Commonwealth, which continued to brag about how there have been a total of 36 jurors that have decided I should die, but failed to mention the State Supreme Court ruled the conviction and sentence unconstitutional and a violation of due process in the first two proceedings, so 24 jurors have to be subtracted from that number. The prosecution has to learn that they can't create laws as they go along and use crooked evidence to get a conviction and sentence and still count or brag about winning. They cheated, got caught and got reversed. So the number should only be twelve, which didn't include any blacks, as I said in my statement.

Some also may think I'm making a big deal out of not having any blacks on the jury, but think about it for a minute. Think of how a white person who feel if they or a family member was on trail, the victim was black and there was an all black jury deciding on their fate. I am sure you would want at least a few white people on the jury, to at least make it appear fair.

I have to continue to fight this injustice and need any and all outside support. I need a lawyer or law firm to take my case pro bone or people and a sponsor to start a defense fund, to hire a lawyer or law firm. I need supporters to start petitions, etc. bring this injustice to the attention of the public. Time is running out. Pennsylvania's Governor Tom Ridge is signing Death Warrants as if he is signing autographs.

For more information please contact:
Robert Fisher #AS-1738
1040 E. Roy Furman Highway
Waynesburg, Pa. 15370-8090

Dark Sorrow encourages anyone reading this to check out the actual case and see what the facts are. If you have any questions and don't want to write to Mr. Fisher directly then please email Dark Sorrow and I will send the question along to him.

Email Dark Sorrow