CROWELL AND MORING CONTINUE PUMPING CROSLEY GREEN GARBAGE

Crosley’s lawyers claim the withheld notes would have enabled examination of a biased investigation. But the notes contain no request to investigate Kim Hallock, no refusal to investigate Kim Hallock, and no evidence of a biased investigation. Clarke and Rixey offering an opinion when asked by a prosecutor, is not the same as asking for an investigation, being refused, or anyone being uncritical. Clarke and Rixey are proved to be lying about Kim Hallock. If anything, prosecutor White was “investigating” the defense argument that Kim Hallock did it, when he wrote these notes. But prosecutor White’s investigation revealed that Clarke and Rixey had nothing useful to add.

The key element of Crosley’s petition for a rehearing of his denied Brady violation, is that disclosing prosecutor White’s notes “would have revealed a remarkably uncritical attitude on the part of the police” (quoting Justice Souter in Kyles 514 US). This could then have been used to explore the overall credibility of the investigation. But in reality, the Notes contained no material additional evidence of this uncritical one-sided investigation, and their proposed hypothetical use by the defense at trial is unrealistic.

Crosley’s lawyers claim the withheld notes have three elements, the first-responding deputies 1) suspect the girl did it after considering the totality of evidence, 2) marshalled the evidence supporting their conclusion, and 3) reported their opinions to other investigators who ignored them and never considered Kim Hallock to be a suspect. Crosley’s lawyers went so far as to claim the existence of the notes themselves demonstrates that Rixey and Clarke told the prosecution that Hallock should be investigated, but there was no such investigation. But element 2 is arguable, as prosecutor White, not Clarke or Rixey, wrote this list. Prosecutor White was “investigating” what they saw. And element 3, that Clarke and Rixey urged an investigation of Kim Hallock which was refused, is just a lie invented on the spot, perhaps hoping judges like being lied to.

I have looked White’s notes up and down, and nowhere is there any hint that they reported an opinion to investigators which included the totality of the evidence necessary to be relevant, which theory was not otherwise available to investigators, and which investigators did not consider or investigate. All claims that Rixey or Clarke urged police to investigate Kim and were ignored, seem to have been invented decades later, as part of a body of obviously false statements by Clarke and Rixey. The actual depositions of Clarke and Rixey available to the defense at the time not only contradict most of their later statements, but show Clarke and Rixey were never in possession of the totality of the evidence. Clarke did not even know what Kim Hallock looked like.

There is not even any evidence that Clarke and Rixey would have known whether Kim Hallock was considered or investigated as a suspect. Crosley’s lawyers claim the withheld notes would have unlocked all kinds of evidence. But they have provided no actual examples of anything available and credible and admissible that would have been unlocked.

The reality is that Clarke and Rixey not only were not in possession of the totality of evidence, they are in fact proven liars. Their opinion is supported by the totality of the lies. And there is still no actual evidence they urged and were ignored, or a similar theory was not considered or investigated. Crosley’s lawyers talk about Clarke and Rixey’s “pleas to investigate Hallock” which pleas are hypothetical and imaginary.

http://cops2prison.org/crosley_green_files/Amended-Petition-for-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf

The standard promoted by Crosley’s lawyers, is that any opinion that is not discovered as evidence, is proof investigators were uncritical. This could be used any time to get anyone out of prison, just by showing there was a person with an opinion – not an actual witness – whose name or opinion the defense did not know of. If there is not proof police adopted your opinion, then they are uncritical. Opinions are infinite, as would be Brady violations. Can new evidence be produced, by going around asking cops their opinions on old cases?

Offering a suspicion of guilt in response to being asked by the prosecutor, is not the same as urging an investigation, being ignored, or someone else being uncritical. I have attached White’s notes in their entirety. I challenge you to find therein a lack of criticality, or a failure to investigate. I challenge you to offer any credible evidence of a lack of criticality or failure to investigate which these notes would have unlocked, which was available from any source at the time of Crosley’s trial. It would be lack of criticality to consider the opinions of proven liars Clarke and Rixey. They did not even write these ideas in their reports, but only spouted this hastily-constructed nonsense when shaken like a tree by someone else.