| Return to Pressley Alston's Homepage |
The defendant respectfully requests
this honorable court to attach to this
motion his "Motion For A Hearing 'De
Novo' " for a reconsideration to have that motion heard. This will
allow the matters therein to come before this court again and in its proper
fashion as pro se because the defendants "Motion For Faretta - hearing
/ imquiry indicates that he wishes to represent himself in the above -
style cause.
Further, the defendant requests for this court to allow the supplemental act of the "Motion For Voluntary Dismissal" be introduced as an addendum to this motion because the facts therein prove this was a malo amino, malicious abuse of legal process and malicious prosecution on behalf of the State Attorney Angela Corey-Lee due to the illegible and illegal evidence used to identify the teeth of the alleged victim, which violates Brady.
The presence of malice therein; and the willful malicious act intentionally done by the State Attorney Angela Corey-Lee are without legal justification or excuse. This was an unlawful act done willfully by Angela Corey-Lee willfully and purposely to injure a human namely, one Pressley Bernard Alston.
By the establishment of a fact of evidence
the prosecution has the burden of
proving their theory or case by a preponderance
of the evidence against every
reasonable doubt with proof.
Proof is a logical sufficient reason for assenting to the truth of a proposition
advanced as ruled by the courts.
In its judicial sense it is a term of wide import, and comprehends everything that may be adduced at trial. But "evidence" is a narrower term, and includes only such kinds of proof as may be legally presented at trial through the aid of such concrete facts as witnesses, records, or other documents which is the perfection of evidence; for without evidence there is no proof.
The State's Attorney office had not
provided any of the authenticate dental
records of the alleged victim.
The trial counsel, Alan Chipperfield filed a notice of discovery but it
did not contain any audio tapes, notes, logs, photographs, or diagrams
of the purportedly made dental charts by Dr. Chester Aikens that were hearsay.
No predicate was ever laid as to the antemortem charts or Xrays used by
Dr. Floro to identify the body of the alleged victim.
A prosecutor has the broad authority to investigate each crime though in the above-style cause there was a malicious motive to give the defendant a death sentence in ths instance , the relief sought would give the defendent a chance and legal right to have litigation costs provided for expert witnesses because he is indigent and have litigation costs provided to have the body of the alleged victim's teeth as provided for indigents in State v. Byrd, 378 So-2d 1231, 1 32 (FLA.) Citing Griffin v. Illinois, 351 u.s. 12, 76 S.CT 585 (1956)
The Defendent Argues :
Perjury is a form of obstruction of justice meaning; preventing a court, the parties, and the public from discovering the truth. Perjury, subordination of Perjury, concealment of Subpoenaed documents, and witnessing that has been tampered with are all forms of obstruction of justice. See Starr Report at Footnore 26.
Dr. Bonifacio Floro commited perjury
and obstructed justice in this case by his testimony and it has already
been proven and ruled upon he is not a forensic Odontologist. Though
he testified my his own comparisons and visual examination he could
prove this was the alleged body of the alleged victim.
Dr. Floro's testimony os preposterous
because prior to the trial the alleged victim has numerous photos with
'braces' in his mouth. This can also be proven by a newsclip aired
by news channel 4 wherein the alleged victim
was showed with 'braces' in his mouth.
Dr. Floro would have to be qualified as an expert regard to this evidence
because it takes a forensic odontologist or dentist to research the anterior
teeth, posterior teeth, central incisors, lateral incisors and premolars
because the alleged victims past dental impressions would bear witness
to the fact he wore 'braces'. This court should not forget that he 'compared'
a chart purportedly made by a dentist Dr. Chester Aikens to a post-mortem
chart by visual examination.
Dr. Chester Aikens committed perjury
and obstructed justice in this case
because he knowingly and intelligently
provided the state with falsified records of the alleged victim.
The prosecution never listed or called Dr. Chester Aikens as a witness
to testify as to how he obtained or made the purported 'hearsay' records
of the alleged victim. The record is abundantly clear that Dr. Floro
was not and never had been a dentist, was not an odontologist, and
was definately not qualified to perform testing and evaluation in
that field.
The record is clear the prosecution did not call Dr.Chester Aikens as a witness or present as exhibits any records, statements, x-rays or remarks by Dr. Chester Aikens to make the States case proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution abused its discretionand violated the law to obtain a conviction of first-degree murder because its investigations to the identity of the alleged victim's teeth meant or would mean the defendant would have to be charged with a lessor charge or be permitted to a plea bargain.
The prosecutor, not the courts, evaluates
the strengh of a case though in this instance the state attorney Angela
Corey-Lee committed rosecutorial misconduct by allowing and introducing
falsified records to be introduced
to bump the charges of the defendant
to first degree.
State Attorney violated bradyv. U.S.,
373 u.s.83,83 S.CT.1194, 10 L.ED.2d
215 by concealing this exculpatory
information that she knew about but
failed to disclose it to the defendant
in time for trial.
If this court refuses to grant the entitled relief sought in the motion for a "hearing de novo" or an evidentiary hearing then the state of Florida will have suceeded in obtaining a capital conviction based on the perjury and abstruction of justice by the prosecution and of its so-called forensic dental expert. Those who commit a fraud on the court must be held accountable.
The order and granting of this motion
and motion for a hearing "de novo"
woll move this court to reverse this
cause for a new trial or evidentiary
hearing in the above style-cause.
Given that the law requires certain
in this area, the defendant respectfully
requests this court to take teh sautious
approach and grant hin the entitled
relief sought.
Respectfully submitted,
Pressley Alston
| Return to Pressley Alston's Homepage |
