Steven Miller
 Death Sentence Overturned

INTRODUCTION

My name is Perry Steven Miller.  Presently I am incarcerated at the Indiana State Prison, Michigan City, Indiana. 
The unit that I am presently house is generally called "X-Row." 
In reality, it is the death row unit for the State of Indiana.
I am under the sentence of death for a crime that I did not do nor have any part in. 
I have been in this unit since May 20, 1991.
Recently I have begun preparations for my Federal Appeals. 
Those who know the system for what it is, know this is an uphill battle that most lose in the end. 
The State has blocked and denied every attempt to obtain a new trial.
I have presented evidence to the courts that I was not involved in the crime. 
Yet, according to the same courts in Indiana, I have not met my responsibility to my issues.

I was charged with the following crimes: Murder, Criminal Confinement,
Robbery, Rape, Criminal Deviate Conduct and Conspiracy to Commit Murder.

The charges stem from two (2) guys going in and robbing an all night store, taking the clerk, then raping and killing her. 
When these two (2) were caught, one (1) of them (who was at that time my step-son) made a number of confessions. 
He admitted that he committed the crime and had murdered the store clerk. 
His first three (3) confessions cleared me and any part of the crimes that had taken place. 
When they were told that they would be facing the death penalty, their story changed. 
Now the confessions stated that I was the person that told them to commit the crimes. 
The prosecutor then brought charges against me on the theory that I aided in the crimes and told them how to commit them. 
The prosecutor, at the beginning of the trial told the jury that they would hear evidence that
I aided in the commission of the crime, but that I did not do the crimes myself.
At this time, these guys had nineteen (19) Felony charges against them:
Rape, Robbery, Burglary and Vandalism.  I had kicked them out of my home and they threatened to kill me. 
I had told them "You haven't got the guts to kill anyone."  They proved me wrong when they committed this crime.

The prosecution brought in 250 pieces of evidence during the trial.
Of these pieces of evidence submitted, only about eight (8) pieces had my name attached to them. 
Of these pieces, seven (7) were proved negative to my involvement.  One (1) lone piece, a hair, was testified to,
that it belonged to me.  Later, during post conviction hearings, this hair was proved not to belong to me. 
Because there was a rape involved, DNA testing was done. 
The results of that test showed that I did not have any sexual contact with the victim, nor was I even involved. 
Forensic evidence was simply thrown to the side.

    In talking to the potential jurors, the prosecutor injected his own thoughts to the jurors saying things like; "geez, there's a strong chance this guy's done something, it's okay to have the opinion that Miller's guilty, can't ignore pink elephants, not from Mars, wasn't born yesterday," just to name a few statements made by the prosecutor.  The Indiana Supreme Court said that it was all right to do this.  But, is it?  Should it not have been along the lines of "My function is to prosecute and convict guilty people," this is what a normal person would say.  In Case Law it states, "a prosecutor cannot inject his own thought and beliefs."

 The prosecutor presented perjured testimony to aid in his quest for a
conviction. Justice isn't a matter of getting a conviction at any cost.
Justice comes from following the law and honoring the law. Without this, justice is thrown out of the window. Understanding this being wrong, once the prosecutor realized this had been done on purpose or by mistake, he should have maintained the honor of his office and correct this. It is the duty of the prosecutor to prosecute the wrongs/crimes, but it's also his duty to preserve justice. In this case,  justice was swept under the rug to maintain a conviction, whether or not it was wrong. Equally, the attorneys who represented me, and
knowing that the conviction cannot stand with perjured testimony decided to help the court sweep this under the rug. The Indiana Supreme Court, whose duty is to protect the rights of all persons turned their heads away from the facts. Where do we go to find justice?

 The perjury in this case isn't hard to see or find. A woman come into the Court Room, and under oath stated that I had come in the store that she worked at, I created a scene and I was to have been buying shotgun shells. She stated that she could remember me because my name "Perry" was the same as her uncle's name. She stated that I had wrote her a check and that she had to check my name against the bad check list. She said that she looked at my drivers license and knew my name was Perry. She was so sure that she pointed me out in the Court Room as the person she had to deal with. The prosecutor never presented a copy of the check she claimed I had wrote.
My attorney never presented the copy of the check I had wrote. Instead, my attorney presented a copy of my
checks showing that I didn't have a checking account under the name of Perry. The prosecutor countered by saying that
I had two checking accounts, one under Steven, the other under Perry, but this was never shown and was not true.

Four (4) years after I was convicted, I finally obtained a copy of the check in question. To my amazement, the check was wrote by a woman. Yet this woman testified that she knew it was me, had seen my drivers license and that there couldn't be any mistake.
It was clear that this woman lied under oath, but those who represented me, defended it as just a mistake on her part.

Why? I'm not sure. It allowed the Court to side step the issue.

Prior to the setting of the jury in this case, each panel was polled as to the feeling of guilt.
Of the 119 people polled about my guilt, 119 people voted I was in fact guilty before any evidence was presented.
  My jury was picked from this group of people, the court allowed these people to sit in judgment.

  The prosecutor ended the trial with asking the jury, "how many times do we have to try this person to get him off the streets."
We know that the prosecutor cannot hint, that it is the jury's civic duty to convict any person.
The prosecutor made many statements about his personal opinions, the courts say that this did not prejudice the jury against me,
yet he used foul language against me before the court for all to hear. 

After the conviction, I uncovered that there were witnesses never called forward. These witnesses would have been able to testify that they saw persons who admitted to the crime, but not by me. When anyone was brought to the stand to speak on my behalf, the jury was told to leave and never heard evidence for me. I, as well, was told not to speak on my behalf.

 Four (4) years after I was convicted, I finally obtained a copy of the check in question. To my amazement, the check was wrote by a woman. Yet this woman testified that she knew it was me, had seen my drivers license and that there couldn't be any mistake. It was clear that this woman lied under oath, but those who represented me,  defended it as just a mistake on her part. Why? I'm not sure. It allowed the Court to side step the issue. 

  I become the easy target for the prosecution. I had time in prison before.
I believe that because I had done time, the jury felt more at ease to convict.
At the same time, in appealing the case, the courts state that they only look at issues most favorable to the State.
If the trial attorney, didn't defend against the crimes then the only issue that can be looked at is the issues of the State.
I had no defense, and had no money to hire lawyers who would defend me.
What I have to depend on are lawyers who will be paid whether I live or die.

One part that isn't in this writing is about justice. I try to hold out the hope that some where in all this process,
I will find and be given justice for crimes I didn't commit. I'm not sure that justice still exists in this country.
We have become a throw away society, in that type of society, there's little need for justice.
We once lived with the idea that a person is innocent, until proven guilty.
Today, we are all guilty and if it serves the purpose of the judges or the prosecutors, innocence can never be achieved.

Judge Bradford knew of my innocence when he sentenced me to death when he said,
"I DON'T KNOW WHY THE JURY CONVICTED HIM, WHEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW HE WAS INVOLVED!"

There are many other areas/issues that can be covered and questioned. They can be shared with any person wanting to know more.
I have many needs in this quest to be proven innocent for the crimes I didn't commit.
Let this be the beginning of opening my life up for all to see the truth in.
I seek your help and assistance, whether just becoming a friend or more in other areas of need.

OFFER YOUR HELP TO:

  Perry Steven Miller #911827
 PO Box 41
 Michigan City, Indiana
 46361  USA
 

Custom Search

            

The CCADP has offered free webspace to over 1000 Death Row Prisoners Since 1998

"The Eyes Of The World Are Watching Now"

---

Last updated December 28, 2010  Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty
This page is maintained and updated by Dave Parkinson and Tracy Lamourie