There is a very specific order in which an American is permitted to fight a wrongful conviction. Even the slightest misstep can deem you "procedurally barred", and then you're FUCKED, no matter how egregious the violations to your Constitutional Rights.
The first step is the Direct Appeal.
Spencer Hahn was appointed to represent me. After reviewing my case, he said, "I'm not sure if your trial counsel was lazy, incompetent, or both". He informed me that I have an abundance of appealable issues, but the Idaho Appellate Court isn't known for doing the right thing. He was blunt, and told me that it would take a couple of years, they would deny my appeal with obnoxious reasoning, and he and I would be pissed. He was spot on!
Spencer authored an amazing Appellate Brief, full of relevant case law. He argued that there wasn't sufficient or ANY evidence to support the conviction for manslaughter. The State and their "experts" still can't tell us how Natalie died, much less that I killed her.
He pointed to several instances of prosecutorial misconduct, one that actually supports our argument about the manslaughter conviction. You see, Manslaughter is "the unlawful killing of a human being...without malice...upon sudden quarrel or heat of passion." In a desperate attempt to secure a MURDER conviction, George Gunn described Natalie's level of intoxication to render her "helpless, like a baby", and the prosecution's story relied on her being unconscious at the time of death. How did a sudden quarrel develop? How did heat of passion arise? They told a story of Murder, and I was acquitted of Murder. Manslaughter should've never been a option for the weak minded local jurors that think the prosecutors are "the good guys". Sheep!
Spencer also rightfully accused Judge Bail of abusing her discretion when she gave me an excessive 54 year sentence, after I had rejected a 10 year sentence prior to trial. Let me touch on that, I was offered a deal for 10 years! If I MURDERED Natalie, ten years would've been a gift, yet I risked LIFE in prison, in a Murder Trial. Then, the Judge punished me for exercising my right to trial. No matter where you stand on this case, you have to think about that. Just take a minute and think about it.
The State replied with a proverbial "Nuh uh". They knew that they only needed to reply, regardless of the content. They've paid their dues at the Good Ole Boys' Club, and they never lose. Of course, the Idaho Appellate Court rejected my appeal with an "internally contradicting opinion". Spencer petitioned the Idaho Supreme Court (The Highest of the High Horses in Idaho), with a spectacularly written brief that pointed to the senseless explanations given in the Appellate Courts opinion. He showed that they actually had Natalie dying at two different times, to support two desperate "could have" scenarios, along with multiple falsehoods contained in their opinion. The Idaho Supreme Court denied a review. That means that they didn't even look into it.
That whole debacle took a couple of years and brings us to our next step
​
FYI... Spencer Hahn was disgusted by Idaho's blatant corruption, so he quit, and he now fights Death Row cases in Alabama.
​
The next step in this process is the Petition for Post Conviction Relief. This is the first time that you can allege Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Now, this is where you can clearly see an extreme disadvantage, imposed on petitioners, by legislators.
I had to file the original petition without any assistance, along with a motion to appoint counsel. I was granted counsel by the Honorable Judge Deborah Bail. She appointed the Ada County Public Defender's Office. Since they represented me in my trial, and my petition is essentially a lawsuit against them, this is a conflict of interest. It's common. Apparently, so is the fact that their office contracts out conflict attorneys. Yep, the people I was suing picked my attorney, to represent me, against them.
They picked John DeFranco, of Ellsworth, Kallas and DeFranco, P.L.L.C.
1031 E. Park Blvd., Boise, ID 83712
(208) 336-1843
According to my Investigator, Peter Smith (Awesome Guy!), their firm had held a contract with Ada County for at least 15 years, yet, to his recollection, had never prevailed in a post-conviction case. Why would they? If they start kicking the public defenders' asses in court, surely their contract wouldn't be renewed. If your appalled, imagine how it feels from this side of the fence. Moving on.
My first call with DeFranco set the tone for our relationship. He hadn't reviewed my petition, so I asked him what the timeline was for him to start working on my case. He asked me what my sentence was, and I told him 25 and 29. He said, "Well, what's your hurry?" Whether you know me or not, you can imagine my responsive tone when informing him that I had already done too much time for a crime that I didn't commit. He gave a passive apology, and asked me to call him the following week. I did, and we arranged a time for Peter to come out and grab my transcripts and discovery.
​
Peter and I had an instant rapport. He laughed and said that, based on DeFranco's assumptions, he was expecting someone with a different look and demeanor. I get it, most attorneys have prejudices toward incarcerated individuals.
Peter was the first person to actually ask me, "What happened?". I told him in detail, although, the day I left Boise wasn't particularly a day that I thought I would have to remember. We spoke for about an hour, then he took my trial transcripts and discovery for DeFranco to copy. Peter returned the following week, and he informed me that he had fact checked some pretty random pieces of my story. He told me that he knew that I was telling the truth, and he was on my side. I cannot explain how good it feels to be on this side of the fence and have someone actually listen, investigate, and see the truth. He did some amazing things that will probably, at some point, return my freedom.
On the other hand, John DeFranco wasn't doing anything. He wouldn't return my transcripts or discovery. He rarely took my calls, and thought the deadline to file the amended petition was more of a suggestion. I wrote multiple letters to Judge Bail, without any response or guidance. DeFranco did file an Amended Petition for Post Conviction Relief, but it was absent any citing of case law or explanation of how my trial would've gone differently, absent the deficiencies of trial counsel. It was basically a redacted version of what I had originally submitted. It didn't preserve any allegations for a Federal Habeas.
I had to file three Motions to Appoint New Counsel, before I was finally granted a hearing, in July of 2015. BIG SURPRISE! She denied the motion, but gave us an extension to correct the incomplete petition. DeFranco did file a Second Amended Petition, but it was still lacking necessary case law and overall substance. I filed a 4th Motion to Appoint New Counsel, but it was ignored and never ruled upon. We actually didn't hear anything from Judge Bail, despite efforts from both sides, until she filed a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, in September of 2017. DeFranco did file an answer, addressing the Judge's claims of deficiency in our petition, but to no avail. The Honorable Judge Bail dismissed my petition, without an evidentiary hearing, in January of 2018.
​
Of course, I appealed that decision, because that was the next action.
I was appointed an attorney, Jenny Swinford. She "regretfully" informed me that she was unable to appeal the majority of the allegations, because of ONE SENTENCE, in a response given by John DeFranco. It was actually a response to a motion that wasn't even ruled upon.
In an attempt to further delay proceedings, the Ada County Prosecutor motioned for the Court to order depositions, from Tony, Danica, and me. DeFranco objected, stating, "Petitioner expects depositions of his trial counsel to produce responses defending their decisions at trial as strategy and tactics." That one statement prevented Jenny Swinford from appealing 12 of the 15 allegations in my petition. Technically, my attorney stipulated that my trial counsel's horrible performance and failure to investigate was a tactical trial strategy. At least, that's what she told me, but her check is from the State of Idaho too. She appealed 3 allegations.
I filed a Motion 60b(6), which is a motion for the District Court (Judge Bail) to stay its ruling and allow me to refile a new Petition for Post Conviction Relief. This opportunity makes sense because the deficiencies, for which Judge Bail dismissed my petition, are the exact issues I addressed while begging her to remove DeFranco from my case. Like I said, that would make sense, but if it makes sense, it doesn't make dollars for IDOJ or IDOC. They've been hiding behind a piece of case law that protects the relationship between the State and "conflict attorneys". The case is State v. Murphy, and it commands: A petitioner isn't entitled to counsel Therefore, a petitioner cannot claim ineffective assistance of post conviction counsel.
This reasoning is fundamentally flawed. A petitioner may not be "entitled" to counsel, for this action, but the instant that an Honorable Judge appoints counsel, an American should expect that counsel will be effective, protecting their 6th Amendment Constitutional Rights. Last time I checked, Federal Law trumps Idaho law, and I checked today. I cannot find an Idaho attorney that will argue against the status quo. "That's just the way it is....." The way things are, gets confused with, the way things should be, usually by those that benefit from the way things are.
​
If you want to fact check, I understand. I'm providing most of what I have. I can't show all of my cards, the State's Attorney has a team that's willing to manipulate any exculpatory evidence. The only relevant action is the Federal Petition for Habeas Corpus. This is the last step, and I'm pumped to finally be here. I will prevail.