Madison Vang - Amicus Brief

In The Supreme Court of the United States
Dexter (Petitioner) v.
Michigan State Prosecutor (Respondent)
On Writ of Certiorari
To the Supreme Court of the United States
Brief Amicus Curiae Of The

Criminal Bar Association
In Support of ______Respondent_______________ (respondent or petitioner)
In the Supreme Court of the United States Dexter V. Michigan State Prosecutor, I believe that
Dwight Dexter’s rights were not upheld. There were multiple accords on the case prosecution that were
unfair and not in Dwight Dexter’s fair. A good example is the jury that ruled him guilty.
In Dwight Dexter’s case, unfairness was spread thoroughly as the jury was actually filled with
only white people. This happened from biased kicking off of the jury pool. In Exhibit B. Document 1,
we are shown the Jury Selection process for the trial of Dwight Dexter. A jury is one of the biggest parts
of a court trial in America and shows that his final jury actually had no African Americans and actually
a fully white Jury. Although two were ruled out for reasons that make sense, two of them were stated to
be ruled out for strange reasons. For instance, “AAM: answered in a defiant way” this shows that the
African American man on the jury was simply taken off for being defiant and does not give an actual
valid reason for taking him off the court. We were also given the fact that this prosecution has a history
of striking off African Americans from the pool. This actually goes against the Batson Challenge which
was a law made from Batson V. Kennedy after a jury was kicked off solely for their own race disguised
as just kicking the jury off to have a certain number of jury and not for an actual reason. Although you
do not need to have a whole jury of a certain race, you cannot kick the jury off because of their skin
color.
Right before Dwight Dexter is about to meet his end from the electric chair, it is stopped abruptly
and he is given a stay of execution and a chance to appeal. This results from the fact that not just
Randolph Stone but also Morgan Livingston, two testimonies that sent Dexter to the electric chair, are
both false testimonies. Lying in a court is actually against amendment six and will get you into a lot of
trouble for having malicious intent. In Exhibit C, Document B, there is an article from the Washington
Press where Stone states that while Dexter did come to his house, it was on his feet and without a
weapon. Later in that article Morgan Livingston, the ballistics professional, admits that he was in fact
paid and lured Dexter to Detroit to frame him. Not only were these two statements costing a life of
another man’s but they were costing their life too. Both Stone and Livingston admitting to lying in their
testimony shows that Dexter’s rights were not upheld because his witnesses did not tell the truth in his
hearing and that is against the law.
Amendment six is actually one of the biggest amendments that were made to help the people of
America have a right and quick trial. Dwight Dexter’s case was in fact not right or even quick. It took
19 years for Dwight Dexter’s death sentence to be overturned. A completely innocent man. Dwight
tried to appeal a year after his sentence but was rejected and finally in 1999 after both testimonies
admitted to lying on his case, his case was set on a new road. He then got rejected again a year later in
2000 but was then accepted again in 2000, overturning his death sentence, and then 2001, reinstating his
death sentence. Just these appeals in themselves is not a speedy trial. After his appeal he had to go
through 5 more trials and hearings before the Supreme Court accepted his appeal.
Once again, Dwight Dexter’s rights were not upheld. On multiple occasions his sixth
amendment rights were not upheld with a lying cast of people testifying against him. This man was also
stripped from a speedy trial shown in his six trials stretching over 1982-2001. Even if those rights were
upheld, his jury pool was very biased against him. Being juried by a pool of white people as all African
Americans were kicked out on no actual basis. I state my case that Dwight Dexter’s rights were not
upheld and were taken advantage of by people who were coached for this case and were willing to lie to
help themselves.
Respectfully submitted, Madison Vang
Attorney at Law, Criminal Bar Association

Madison Vang - Amicus Brief

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Madison Vang - Amicus Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The Supreme Court of the United States

Brief Amicus Curiae Of The

In Support of Respondent_________ (respondent or petitioner)

hearing and that is against the law.

Respectfully submitted, Madison Vang

Attorney at Law, Criminal Bar Association

You might also like