A Just Cause Asks Why 10th Circuit Appellate Court Upheld IRP6 Conviction With Constitutional Rights Being Violated?1
February 17, 2016 by socialaction2014
February 16, 2016 12:22 ET
A Just Cause Asks Why 10th Circuit Appellate Court Upheld IRP6 Conviction With Constitutional Rights Being Violated?
Critical Portion of Transcript Detailing 5th Amendment Violation Missing and Ignored: A Just Cause Asks for Answers From the DOJ and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
DENVER, CO –(Marketwired – February 16, 2016) – Advocacy group, A Just Cause announces today that it is asking the federal government to launch a full investigation into operations of the federal courts in Denver, Colorado surrounding the handling of the IRP6 case. The decision handed down by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by Judges Jerome Holmes, Bobby Baldock and Harris Hartz denying the IRP6 appeal (D.C. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA, Appellate Case: 11-1492, Document: 01019289332, 8/4/14) has serious questions unanswered. “There are too many unanswered questions surrounding the actions of the court,” says Lamont Banks of A Just Cause, an advocacy group seeking true balance and accountability on a variety of issues facing America today including judicial accountability.
A Just Cause raises questions regarding the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the district court’s conviction because, among other things, it appears that the court stepped over the most critical issues at hand — the Fifth Amendment violation and critical portions of missing transcript that supports that argument.
The 10th circuit states, “Mr. Barnes voluntarily chose to take the stand.” This is completely contradicted by the recollection of all of the IRP6 defendants. That recollection quotes Judge Arguello stating, “You will either take the stand, or I will rest your case.”
“If that is not compelling one to testify, I don’t know what is,” says Banks.
Excerpts from IRP6 case documents contend the following, “Where defendant testimony has been improperly compelled, no voluntary waiver can exist; therefore, all statements made by Appellant Barnes were in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment protection from such statements made by Appellant Barnes. Statements were illegally obtained…”
“These actions are unacceptable by appellate Judges Baldock, Hartz and Holmes. They are obligated under law to address these violations,” adds Lisa Stewart, of A Just Cause.
Federal Retired Appellate Judge H. Lee Sarokin wrote in regards to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals being in a position to do one thing, when no court records are available for the appeals process:
“If there is no way to determine whether or not the 5th Amendment rights of the defendants were violated, does the Court of Appeals have any other choice but to either reverse and remand for a new trial or dismiss? The defendants languish in prison still asserting their innocence… Can this issue be resolved without the transcript of what the court said to the defendants?”
In civil proceedings against clerk reporter Darlene Martinez, Judge R. Brooke Jackson alluded to the fact that the missing transcripts had to be addressed. Court records show he stated, “If Ms. Martinez was here I would put her on the stand and make her tell this court where the transcripts are.” He went further to say that the Government wanted to use the law as a way to dismiss the claim, to ensure that no one would ever know what happened to the missing transcripts. Judge Jackson chided Government prosecutors and they agreed, “that would simply not be just.”
Court records from the criminal trial show the IRP6 argued their Fifth Amendment right was violated and the transcript to prove that the violation occurred is missing. Court records show that Court Reporter Darlene Martinez admits to omitting critical portions of the transcript, and that Federal Judge Christine Arguello did not release the omitted pages (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA, October 2011, Court transcript pages 2062 -2063).