The Hardin Family Lawsuit against Commonwealth of KY., et al; filed May 14, 2003; Page 72

Pages of the Complaint

1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75

2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74

 

Therefore, the Hardin family demands due relief from the Court, which includes Aaron’s release from incarceration.

Count 98 – Collusion
144. The contents of above facts/paragraphs, 1 through 143, are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. Here, Counts Ninety-eight (98) concerns that at least Commonwealth Prosecutors and James M. Shake Colluded to Secure a Conviction against Aaron.

145. The evidence clearly shows that JAMES SHAKE and Commonwealth prosecutors, DAVID STENGEL, BRIAN BUTLER, PAUL DZENITIS, and ALLAN COBB colluded to secure the conviction against Aaron. Including but not limited to, the prosecutors and James Shake acted together to: A) mislead the jury in regards to the applicable penalty range; B) introduced irrelevant and prejudicial evidence of alleged prior and other alleged crimes; C) introduced faulty testimony that Aaron had previously fired a gun; D) falsely alluded that Aaron traded drugs for the gun; E) reneged on an agreement that caused Aaron to re-incriminate himself; F) brought forth an defective indictment against a child; G) provided insufficient and mis-represented evidence to sustain a finding; H) introduced inaccurate, inflammatory, irrelevant photographs and video of crime scene footage; I) made prejudicial comments during the closing arguments to acquire jury nullification; J) tried a child with the standards of an adult; and K) forced Aaron to hold the gun to incriminate himself; improperly acquired oral statements that Aaron made to police were admitted during trial.

146. The preponderance of- and overwhelming evidence clearly shows that the prosecutors and James Shake acted against Aaron without regard to his welfare or rights. With violations at each development of the case, they cannot claim that they do not know the law or due-process. Obviously, from studying the record, they discussed their illegal plans of action amongst each other before implementation. And the neglect began on the >>>

- 72 -

<<< previous page | next page >>>

| HOME | return to: Index of Issues & Letters |

| How to Participate |

| Disclaimer | Contacts | Related Links |