Amicus Brief

 

CARLA G. RYAN

Arizona State Bar 4254

Law Offices of Carla Ryan

PMB 196

7090 North Oracle, Suite 178

Tucson, Arizona 85704

(520) 297 - 1113

Local Counsel

JAMES G. McDONALD

Virginia Bar No. 39,726

Amicus Pro Hae Vice

71 18 Whetstone Road

Alexandria, Virginia 22306

(703) 909-6327

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA

State of Arizona,

Plaintiff/ Appellee,

V.

Shawna Forde,

) Ariz.Sup.Ct. No. CR-11-0043-AP

)

) Pima Cty. Super.Ct.

) No. CR-20092300-001

)

)

) AMICUS BRIEF

)

)

_ __D_ e_fe_n_d_ant_/A_pp_e_ll_a_nt __)

1

r .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ISSUES ( OF FIRST IMPRESSION) PRESENTED FOR REVIEW . . . 5

ST A TEMENT OF THE CASE . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . -7

ST A TEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .•. . . .. . ... 9

ARGUMENT IN GENERAL - Extracted Rule . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. .. . . 12

ARGUMENTS - Facts Material to Both Arguments I and II ............ 20

ARGUMENT I . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22

The trial court committed reversible fundamental error as its pretrial procedure conclusively showed the victim/witness who to identify and then, minutes later, allowed the victim/ witness to identify the defendant as the perpetrator, and allowed the court-corrupted identification testimony to be considered by the jury.

ARGUMENT II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 31

The trial court committed reversible fundamental error when it allowed the prosecution during the trial to conclusively show the victim/ witness who to identify and then, minutes later, allowed the victim/ witness to identify the defendant as the

perpetrator, and allowed the court-corrupted identification testimony to be considered by the jury.

CONCLUSION ......... ........................................................... 38

APPENDIX Affidavit of James G. McDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

CERTIFICATE OF RULE 31.13(b) COMPLIANCE . ................ ... 42

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................ ..... .......... ................ 43

 

TABLE OF CITATIONS

ARIZONA CASES

State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, (1969) .. ...... 7,9,20,21,24,26,27,28,34

State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 56 I, (Ariz. 2005) .......... 24,25,29,33,34,36

State v. Hunter, 142 Ariz. 88 (Ariz. 1984) . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

State v. McCall, 139 Ariz. 147 (1983).. ... . .. . . ... . .. ...... .. ... ... .. .. .. 5

State v. Rosthenhausler, 147 Ariz. 486 (1985) ....... . ................. 5

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES

Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 (1969) .................. . ........ . .. 15

Manson V Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) . .. ....... . ............. 13,14,17

Neilv. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) ......... . ......................... 13,14

Perry v. New Hampshire, No. 10-8974, slip op. (U.S. Jan 11 , 2012) 12, 13,

14, l5,16,17,l 8,19,34

United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 ( 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. 34

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Arizona Constitution

Ariz. Const. Art.VI, §3 . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7

Victims' Bill of Rights, Arizona Constitution, Article 2,

Section 2.1 (C) and (A) 3 ............................. ... . ........ 9,24,32

United States Constitution

U.S. Const .Amendment V (Due Process)... .. ...... .. ... ............ .. .. passim

U.S. Const. Amendment XJV (Due Process) .. . .... . ... ................ passim

 

STATUTES

A.R.S. §12-120.21 . .......... . .. . ................ . ................ .............. 7

A.R.S. §13-751 ................................ . .............. ...... ........... 7

A.R.S. §13-4031 ...................................... ... . ...................... 7

A.R.S. § 13-4033 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7

A.R.S. § 13-4036 . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 7

A.R.S. §13-1507 ...................... . ....................................... 11

A.R.S. 13-1902 A ................................... .......................... 11

ISSUES (OF FIRST IMPRESSION) PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Did the trial court commit fundamental and reversible error when its pretrial

procedure conclusively showed the victim / witness who to identify and then,

minutes later, allowed the victim/ witness to identify the defendant as the

perpetrator, and allowed the court-corrupted identification testimony to be

considered by the jury?

Did the trial court commit fundamental and reversible error when it allowed

the prosecution during the trial to conclusively show the victim / witness who to

identify and then, minutes later, allowed the victim/ witness to identify the

defendant as the perpetrator, and allowed the court-corrupted identification

testimony to be considered by the jury?

In State v. McCall, 139 Ariz. 147 (1983), Mrs. Redmond, a victim/witness,

was unable to identify the defendant in photo and video lineups. Id. at 9-10.

McCall differs as Mrs. Redmond, the victim/witness identified the defendant,

suggestively situated, at a pretrial hearing a short time after the crime ( 14 days ).

Id. at 11 . The case also differs in that, on the day of the trial, prior to Mrs.

Redmond's testimony, there is no evidence of unnecessary and conclusive

displays of the defendant for viewing by Mrs. Redmond.

In State v. Rosthenhausler, 147 Ariz. 486 (1985), two witnesses to armed

robberies, Wilson and Morgan, were unable to identify the appellant from photo

lineups. Rosthenhausler differs as the two witnesses identified the defendant,

suggestively situated, at the Dessureault hearing. Id. at 489. That was the first

time they identified him. Rosthenhaus/er also differs in that, on the day of the

trial, prior to the testimony of Wilson and Morgan, there is no evidence of

unnecessary and conclusive displays of the defendant for viewing by Wilson and

Morgan.

6

r .

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21, 13-751, 13-

4031, 13-4033, 13-4036, Ariz. Const. Art.VI, §3.

For the reasons explained herein, the conviction of Ms. Forde is unconstitutional,

violating her Due Process rights. She is entitled to mercy and relief. At

minimum, she is due a new trial.

Early in the morning on May 30, 2009, a male intruder entered the Arivaca,

Arizona home of Raul Flores, Jr. and his wife, Gina Gonzales. RT 1/25/ 11 at 90-

9 l. Their nine-year-old daughter, Brisenia, was asleep as was Gina Gonzales. Id.

at 87. A white female intruder and two other male intruders also entered the home.

Id. at 101.

When Mr. Flores attempted to protect his family by attacking the first male

intruder, the man shot Ms. Gonzales and Mr. Flores, killing Mr. Flores. Id. at 98.

The same man shot and killed the child. Id. at l 05.

Gina Gonzales, shot and seriously wounded and in the vicinity when her husband

and youngest daughter were murdered, was "in shock" and "going crazy[.]" RT

1/25/1 1 at 197. She "didn't know what [ wa ]s going on." id. When the intruders

left, Gina Gonzales called 911 and told the operator that she "only saw the first"

intruder into her home; that is, the tall, white male. Dessureault hearing RT

1/4/20 l I at 42. The intruders returned, giving her a second chance to glimpse .

them. In the 91 I recording Gonzales is heard exchanging gunfire. Then the

intruders again left. At the 14 minute mark of the 911 call the following

interaction occurs.

Dispatcher: "Can you remember anything about the people that you saw that

would make them standout?"

Gonzales: "She was really short and fat ... "

Dispatcher: "And were they wearing masks?"

Gonzales: "No."

Dispatcher: "Could you tell what color hair she had, did she have a hat on?"

Gonzales: "I didn't even pay attention Ma'am." RT l /25/11 at 202.

A few days later, Gonzales told investigators that the female intruder had "blondish

brown hair with natural curls." Id. at 61. When shown a lineup containing six

blonde women, including Ms. Forde, who was a platinum blonde, Ms. Gonzales

did not make an identification. Id.; RT 1/5/11, page 35, January 25, 2011

Ms. Forde was indicted on June 22, 2009, for the first-degree murders of Raul and

Brisenia Flores, first-degree burglary, and attempted first-degree murder, two

counts of aggravated assault, armed robbery and aggravated robbery of Gina

Gonzales. ROAl.

She was tried by a jury and convicted of all counts on February 15, 2011. ROA 274-

281. On February 22, 2011 , the jury sentenced her to death.

8

r .

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The charges in this case arose out of an Arivaca, Arizona home invasion

wherein the claim is made that one of the invaders was a white female. See 911

tape. RT 1/5/11 Page 42, January 25, 2011.

Gina Gonzales was in the home during the invasion and was wounded. RT

1/25/11 at 97. As such, she is a victim under Arizona law with certain rights

which include being present at any event at which the defendant may be present.

Victims' Bill of Rights, Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 2.1 (C) and (A)3.

On January 4, 2011 the court, pursuant to State v. Dessureault, I 04 Ariz.

380 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 965 (1970), held an evidentiary hearing. On

January 5 the court ruled that "Gina Gonzales' proposed identification [ of the

defendant as a perpetrator of the home invasion] testimony . . . is sufficiently

reliable to be presented to the jury." Dessureault Ruling, Page 3, January 5, 2011.

That decision failed to discuss the coming trial court's unnecessarily

suggestive/conclusive confrontations.

On January 25, 2011, the first day of the trial, the Amicus observed the first

conclusive identification which happened when a burly, blue-uniformed official

walked the defendant, manacled by at least two pairs of handcuffs stretched behind

9

her back, across the courtroom, directly in front of the victim / witness, Gonzales.

See Appendix-Affidavit of James G. McDonald.

The second conclusive identification, also observed by the Amicus, happened at

the end of the prosecutor's opening statement on January 25, 2011. The record

dispassionately compiles the prosecutor's words as if calmly read from a

teleprompter. "And that conclusion will be that the State has and will prove to you

beyond a reasonable doubt that Shawna Forde is responsible for these crimes. And

we will ask you to find her guilty of each and every count in that indictment." RT

1/5/11 p. 32, January 25, 2011. Amicus observed the prosecutor deliver those

words with riveting passion. Directly in front of Gina Gonzales, she spoke those

words in a shrill, attention-demanding voice as she leaned toward the jury,

thrusting her arm, index finger pointed, at the defendant. The prosecutor sustained

that point. Gina Gonzalez watched intently. See Appendix-Affidavit of James G.

McDonald.

Ms. Forde was indicted for the first-degree murders of Raul and Brisenia Flores,

first-degree burglary, and attempted first-degree murder, two counts of aggravated

assault, armed robbery and aggravated robbery of Gina Gonzalez. ROA 1. The

predicate offenses for the felony murder charge were "burglary or robbery or both .

" RT 2/10/11 at 152.

10

r •

To obtain a felony murder conviction, the jury, had to first find that the defendant

engaged in "burglary or robbery or both" during the home invasion.

Robbery is "taking any property of another from his person or immediate presence

... " (A.R.S. 13-1902 A). Gina Gonzalez and the other victims were in the

Flores-Gonzalez home. Finding the defendant guilty of the predicate offense of

robbery required showing the defendant to be in the "immediate presence," in the

Flores-Gonzalez home.

Burglary is the "entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a residential structure

[the Flores-Gonzalez home] with the intent to commit any theft or any felony

therein." (A.R.S. 13-1507). Finding the defendant guilty of the predicate offense

of burglary required finding that the defendant was "in or on a residential

structure," the Flores-Gonzalez home."

In either situation, robbery or burglary, the prosecution had to show that the

defendant was in the Gonzales-Flores house at the time of the murders to get a

felony murder conviction,.

No physical evidence placed the defendant, Shawna Forde, in the Flores Gonzalez

home during the crimes.

Forde was tried and convicted on all counts on February 15, 2011. ROA 274-281.

11

r .

ARGUMENT IN GENERAL

Amicus believes the issues in this brief are of first impression and that neither the

Arizona Supreme Court nor the United States Supreme Court has considered or

ruled upon the admissibility of day-of-the-trial eyewitness testimony corrupted that

day by a Court's unnecessary and suggestive/conclusive identification of a

defendant.

The U.S. Supreme Court opinion, in Perry v. New Hampshire, No. 10-8974, slip

op. (U.S. Jan 11, 2012), discussed pre-trial eyewitness identifications and not trial

identifications. Amicus finds that the rule for cases of this kind, the Forde Case for

example, is embedded near the surface of Perry and that the rule can be extracted.

Extracted Rule

Due process concerns arise when a court, intentionally or unintentionally,

produces or allows a confrontation that is both suggestive and unnecessary

and

where the indicators of a witness' ability to make an accurate identification are

outweighed by the corrupting effect of court suggestion, the identification should

be suppressed.

Due Process requires the exclusion of an eyewitness identification obtained

through court procedures that made it all but inevitable that the witness would

identify the defendant.

 

Extraction of the rule

In short, a court can not do what law enforcement can not do.

We start with the following Perry text which begins on page 8 of the slip

opinion. First, strike through unneeded text, leaving unmarked the rule for police

pretrial identification procedures.

Also, strike through "only" which is unneeded since we are extracting the

rule that tells when there are Due Process Clause concerns regarding eyewitness

evidence.

"------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, that due process concerns arise ~ when law

enforcement officers use an identification procedure that is both suggestive and

unnecessary.

 .

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. Where the "indicators of [a

witness'] ability to make an accurate identification" are "outweighed by the

corrupting effect" of law enforcement suggestion, the identification should be

suppressed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next, consider the case wherein the suspect was required to participate in a

one-on-one confrontation with the person who was at the crime scene. The Perry

court noted that " . . . due process required the exclusion of an eyewitness identification obtained through police-arranged procedures that "made it all but

inevitable that [the witness] would identify [the defendant]." Foster v.

California, 394 U.S. 440,443 (1969); Perry v. New Hampshire, No. 10-8974, slip

op. at 8 (U.S. Jan 11, 2012).

 

Changing "required" to "requires," eliminating brackets ( [ ] ) and quotations

marks, leaves the Foster rule as "Due Process requires the exclusion of an

eyewitness identification obtained through police-arranged procedures that made it

all but inevitable that the witness would identify the defendant." Add to the end

of the rule.

 

Summing up the rule to this point, after capitalizing the "d" in due process,

changing the "W" in Where to small case, eliminating a period, inserting the word

"and," and eliminating remaining brackets and quotation marks, the rule is:

 

Due process concerns arise when law enforcement officers use an

identification procedure that is both suggestive and unnecessary

and where the indicators of a witness' ability to make an accurate identification are

outweighed by the corrupting effect of law enforcement suggestion, the

identification should be suppressed.

 

Due Process requires the exclusion of an eyewitness identification obtained

through police-arranged procedures that made it all but inevitable that the witness

would identify the defendant.

The Perry court held, "[ w ]e reach a similar conclusion here: The fallibility

of eyewitness evidence does not, without the taint of improper state conduct,

warrant a due process rule requiring a trial court to screen such evidence for

reliability before allowing the jury to assess its creditworthiness." Perry v. New

Hampshire, No. 10-8974, slip op. at 15 (U.S. Jan 1 I, 2012).

In short, the above holding is "[ w ]hen there is no ' taint of improper state

conduct," there are no eyewitness evidence /Due Process concerns.

The obverse is that "[ w ]hen there is the 'taint of improper state conduct,"

there are eyewitness evidence and Due Process concerns.

The Perry court chose not to limit their words to "taint of improper law

enforcement conduct," or "taint of improper police procedures." The Perry Court

wrote broadly and intentionally "taint of improper state conduct" to include a

broad group of actors. Also, note that the court is indifferent as to how the

eyewitness evidence was obtained, police arrangement or otherwise. The court's

concern is the quality of the eyewitness evidence. If the eyewitness evidence is

"taint[ ed by] improper state conduct" then there are Due Process concerns.

 

"[S]tate conduct" covers all state actors, including, of course, police and law

enforcement. State courts clearly are also such actors. As well they should be.

Courts are to be the guardians, not the violators, of Due Process. When they act

improperly, violating Due Process, they must be vulnerable to scrutiny. As the

Perry court noted, " . . . a key premise of the Brathwaite decision . . . a primary

aim of excluding identification evidence obtained under unnecessarily suggestive

circumstances, . . . is to deter law enforcement use of improper lineups ... in the

first place." Perry v. New Hampshire, No. I 0-8974, slip op. at 11 (U.S. Jan 11,

2012).

432 U.S., at 112, Brathwaite reasoned that "police officers will 'guard

against unnecessarily suggestive procedures."' Ibid. Similarly, courts must be

deterred so they do not engage in "improper state conduct" and so they "guard"

against creating "taint[ ed]" confrontations, and prevent others from creating

"taint[ ed]" confrontations, when within their power. Perry v. New Hampshire,

No. I 0-8974, slip op. at 15 (U.S. Jan 11 , 2012). A court's behavior must equal, if

not exceed, that of law enforcement.

As such, replace "law enforcement officers," "law enforcement," and

"police-arranged" with "court," which gives the rule to this point as:

Due process concerns arise when a court uses an identification procedure

that is both suggestive and unnecessary and where the indicators of a witness' ability to make an accurate identification areoutweighed by the corrupting effect of court suggestion, the identification should be suppressed.  Due Process requires the exclusion of an eyewitness identification obtained

through court procedures that made it all but inevitable that the witness would

identify the defendant.

Continuing, the Perry court m Note 1 says "As our case law makes clear,

what triggers due process concerns is police use of an unnecessarily suggestive

identification procedure, whether or not they intended the arranged procedure to be

suggestive. " Perry v. New Hampshire, No. l 0-8974, slip op. at 2 (U.S. Jan 11

2012). That is, Due Process Clause concerns are triggered by unintentionally

suggestive, as well as intentionally suggestive, identification procedures. Intent or

its absence is not at play.

Key to this brief, a confrontation occurs when the victim or witness physically sees

the defendant before identifying him or her and later identifies the defendant as the

perpetrator. The confrontation may occur pretrial, on the day of the trial, before

the trial starts, or during the trial. The identification may occur pretrial or at the

trial. A confrontation may be planned and may be the result of law enforcement

identification procedures, normally incorporating the defendant as well as other

18

r .

persons. Confrontations can be unplanned and can happen absent law

enforcement procedure or other state conduct or direction. A confrontation,

unnecessarily suggestive, may happen because of state action or inaction even

though the state did not intend the confrontation and did not intend it to be

suggestive. A court may arrange procedures or condone, through action or

inaction, behavior that results in a confrontation.

A court's intentional or unintentional production in the courtroom,

of an unnecessary and suggestive confrontation is state action that bears the "taint

of improper state conduct," triggering due process concerns. Perry v. New

Hampshire, No. 10-8974, slip op. at 15 (U.S. Jan 11 2012). Such a confrontation

is identical in nature, perhaps physically indistinguishable, to a law enforcement

identification procedure that is unnecessary and suggestive. Each raises the same

Due Process concern. Is the subsequent identification of the defendant reliable?

Therefore, in accord with the above, replace "uses an identification

procedure" with "intentionally or unintentionally, produces a confrontation."

19

ARGUMENTS

Facts Material to a Discussion of the Issues in both Arguments

On January 25, 2011, James G. McDonald, the Amicus, from about one hour

before the trial began and all the time the court was in session, was in Tucson trial

courtroom 378, to observe the Shawna Forde murder trial. See AppendixAffidavit

of James G. McDonald.

Forde's defense was founded on the fact that there was no recorded direct

evidence, not even eyewitness identification, showing her to be at the crime scene

during the crime.

Gina Gonzalez, the victim / witness, was never recorded prior to the trial as

identifying the defendant as present at the Gonzalez house during the crime. A

few days (June 2, 2009) after the home invasion Gonzales could not pick Forde out

of a six-person photo lineup. Dessureault Ruling, page 2, January 5, 20ll.

On September 27, 2010 Shawna Forde, handcuffed, controlled by deputies and

wearing black-and-white jail clothing attended a hearing. Gina Gonzales, also in

attendance, saw Forde at the hearing. At the January 4, 2011 Dessureault hearing

Gina Gonzales said, that after the September 27 hearing, she told Mr. Unklesbay

"she [ Defendant Shawna Forde] looks exactly the way she did when she came into

20

r -

my house." Dessureault Hearing, Page 75, January 4, 2011. Then Gonzales

changed that statement and said she "told it [her recognition of Shawna Forde at

the September 27 hearing as the woman who invaded her house] to my mom

[Romey Gonzales], actually" Dessureault Hearing, Page 75, January 4, 2011.

She claimed Mr. Unklesbay, nearby, "probably heard me." Dessureault Hearing,

Page 75, January 4, 2011. She also said "I believe I told Dimple [Smith] [ that

Forde looks like the female in her home] . Dessureault Hearing, Page 70, January

4, 2011. Amicus finds no record of Mr. Unklesbay, Romey Gonzales or Dimple

Smith corroborating Gina Gonzales' statement.

Shawna Forde was not present at the Dessureault hearing as pointed out by Mr.

Larsen," ... Ms. Forde, she is not present, she is in custody ... " Dessureault

hearing, page 3, January 4, 2011. Because Forde was not present, Gina Gonzales

could not identify her at that hearing.

On December 14, 2010 Gina Gonzales claimed during an unrecorded telephone

conversation with Detective Navarro that, at the September 27 hearing, she

recognized Forde as the female at her home. Dessureault Hearing, Page 78,

January 4, 2011. Gonzales acknowledges that is the first time [78 days after the

hearing] she told a law enforcement person of her September 27 comment to her

mother about Forde. Dessureault Hearing, Page 78, January 4, 2011

21

Importantly, the victim/ witness, Gina Gonzales, at no time before the trial, in

spite of opportunities to do so, made a recorded identification of Shawna Forde as

the female intruder. However, during the trial, with prancing vigor, enthusiasm

and certainty, Gina Gonzales, the victim/witness identified the defendant as the

invader, "looks just like her." RT 1/5/11, page 95, January 25, 2011 and See

Appendix-Affidavit of James G. McDonald.

ARGUMENT I

The trial court committed reversible fundamental error as its pretrial

procedure conclusively showed the victim/ witness who to identify and then,

minutes later, allowed the victim/ witness to identify the defendant as the

perpetrator, and allowed that court-corrupted identification testimony to be

considered by the jury. The fundamental error caused severe prejudice to the

Defendant who likely otherwise would not have been convicted nor sentenced to

death.

Additional Facts Material to a Discussion of the Issues of Argument I

On the first day of the trial, Gina Gonzales identified the defendant, Shawna Forde,

as the female who came into her home during the crime. She made that

identification after the victim / witness, minutes earlier, twice saw the defendant in

confrontations conclusively identifying Ms. Forde as the person to identify. RT

1/5/1 lat 69-74, January 25, 2011.

Prior to the beginning of the trial and prior to the entry of the jury, the court

engaged in the following procedures. The judge, in complete control of the court

22

r .

room, as he should be, aggressively cleared from the courtroom all prospective

witnesses except Gina Gonzalez, a victim and prospective witness. Gina Gonzales

sat between a victims' advocate and another woman, reputedly her mother. The

Judge allowed Gonzales to stay in the courtroom, free to observe all activity in the

courtroom. Almost immediately thereafter, the court paraded the defendant,

manacled by two linked sets of handcuffs stretched across her back, across the

courtroom, within feet of Gonzalez, controlled and escorted by a much-taller, burly

blue-uniformed official. See Appendix-Affidavit of James G. McDonald.

The jury members were at a disadvantage in judging the reliability of the

soon-to-be victim /witness identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the

home invasion and murders, because they were not present during the pretrial

parading of the defendant in front of the victim / eyewitness. See AppendixAffidavit

of James G. McDonald.

Gina Gonzales on the first day of the trial, January 25, 2011, made her first

recorded identification of the defendant as a perpetrator. RT 1/5/11, page 95,

January 25, 2011. During Gonzalez' 911 call, during which Gina Gonzales claims

to have seen the perpetrator, the Dispatcher asked "Could you tell what color hair

she had, did she have a hat on?" Gonzalez replied "I didn't even pay attention

Ma'am." (Underlining added.) A few days later Gina Gonzales failed to identify

23

r .

Ms. Forde in a six-person photo lineup. Dessureault hearing, page 63, January 4,

2011.

No objection was made at the trial regarding the victim/witness being

present to observe the Defendant being brought into the court room. No objection

was made at the trial regarding the inadmissibility of Gina Gonzales' eye witness

identification testimony.

A victim has the right "[t]o be present at ... all criminal proceedings where

the defendant has the right to be present." Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section

2.1 , Victims ' Bill of Rights, (A) 3. However, Victims ' Rights do not give the

victim the right to be present before a proceeding. Gonzales had no Victims' Right

to be present prior to the trial, nor during the parading of the defendant.

(Underlining added.) But Gina Gonzales was present prior to the trial.

Standard of Review

"This court reviews, when no objection is made at trial, for fundamental error."

State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 , 567, (Ariz. 2005). "To prevail under this

standard of review, a defendant must establish both that fundamental error exists

and that the error in [her] case caused [her] prejudice." Id. at 567.

24

r .

Discussion

Fundamental Error

"[The Defendant] must first prove error." Id. at 568.

Per the first part of the extracted rule, "Due process concerns arise when a court,

intentionally or unintentionally, produces or allows a confrontation that is both

suggestive and unnecessary ... "

On January 25, 2011, the Amicus observed the court err, just before trial, and

produce a confrontation when it allowed the victim/witness to watch the manacled

defendant marched across the court room. See Appendix-Affidavit of James G.

McDonald.

That was beyond merely "suggestive." That was a conclusive identification of the

defendant. Also, the confrontation was "unnecessary." The court could have

ordered the victim/witness from the court room until the trial was gaveled to order.

Then the victim/ witness would not have been present during the parading of the

defendant and there would have been no confrontation. As noted earlier, the

victim did not have a right to be in the court room prior to the trial.

"To establish fundamental error, [the defendant] must show that the error

complained of goes to the foundation of [her] case, takes away a right that is

25

essential to [her] defense, and is of such magnitude that [she]could not have

received a fair trial." Id. at 568.

Forde's defense was founded on the fact that there was no recorded direct

evidence showing her to be at the crime scene.

Gina Gonzalez, the victim / witness, was never recorded prior to the trial as

identifying the defendant as present at the Gonzalez house during the crime. A

few days (June 2, 2009) after the home invasion Gonzales could not pick Forde out

of a six-person photo lineup. Dessureault Ruling, page 2, January 5, 2011.

Per the second part of the extracted rule, "Due process concerns arise ...

where the indicators of a witness' ability to make an accurate identification are

outweighed by the corrupting effect of court suggestion, the identification should

be suppressed."

The corrupting effect of the court's day-of-the-trial pretrial conclusive

identification of the defendant for the witness pretrial overwhelmed the witness'

ability to make a reliable identification. The court did so when it produced a

confrontation and allowed the victim/witness to watch the manacled defendant

marched across the court room. The error of allowing that court-corrupted

identification of the defendant went to the very foundation of her case, violating

her Due Process rights, and established that fundamental error occurred.

26

r .

The third part of the extracted rule is "Due Process requires the exclusion of an

eyewitness identification obtained through court procedures that made it all but

inevitable that the witness would identify the defendant."

Recognition must be made of the January 5, 2011 ruling. On January 5,

2011 the Tucson Court issued a pretrial Dessureault ruling that "Gonzales'

proposed identification of the defendant at trial will be based on her observation on

the night of May 30, 2009 and is sufficiently reliable to be presented to the jury."

Dessureault Ruling, Page 3, January 5, 2011. The court ruling did not consider the

unnecessary and conclusive, beyond suggestive, day-of-the-trial confrontations,

that would come twenty days later.

Amicus contends that two confrontations on the day of the trial either

overwhelmed the memory of the victim/witness memories of events almost 600

days earlier or made it impossible to determine whether Gonzales' identification of

the defendant was based on powerful day-of-the-trial confrontations or her

memories, if any, of almost 600 days earlier.

Amicus is skeptical of the January 5,2011, Dessureault ruling, in part

because the court noted that Gonzales "paid a remarkable degree of attention the

night of the offense." Dessureault Ruling, Page 3, January 5, 2011. That is

contrary to the 911 call where, at the fourteen minute mark, the Dispatcher asked

"Could you tell what color hair she had, did she have a hat on?" Gonzalez replied

27

r .

"I didn't even pay attention Ma'am." Further, the January 5 ruling truncated that

911 conversation when it wrote "[w]hen asked about the woman's hair color,

[leaving out the 'did she have a hat on'], Gonzales replied, 'I didn't even pay

attention.' " The January 5 ruling later says "During a police interview later that

day [June 2, 2009], ... Gonzales said the intruder had 'no hat.' " Dessureault

Ruling, Pages 1-2, January 5, 2011.

The ruling finds that Gonzales "detailed testimony reflects that she paid a

remarkable degree of attention the night of the offense," Dessureault Ruling,

Page 3, January 5, 2011., choosing to note Gonzales" describing [the defendant]

as 'plain jane-not attractive.' " Dessureault Ruling, Page 2, January 5, 2011.

"Plain jane-not attractive" and "ordinary," are often synonyms. Neither carries

specificity. That, by itself, does not demonstrate "detailed testimony" and a

"remarkable degree of attention."

The January 5 ruling, allowing the witness to identify the defendant as the

perpetrator, is overwhelmed by the corrupting effect of the court, immediately

prior to trial, showing the victim / eyewitness who to identify and allowing her

minutes later to identify the defendant, and then to allow the jury to use this

corrupted eyewitness identification, is fundamental error as it is an "error of such

magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial." State

v. Hunter, 142 Ariz. 88, 90 (Ariz. 1984).

28

r .

The marching of the manacled defendant in front of the witness made it

inevitable that the witness would identify the defendant. Per the extracted rule,

"Due Process requires the exclusion of an eyewitness identification obtained

through court procedures that made it all but inevitable that the witness would

identify the defendant." In this case, the court procedures made the identification

inevitable.

The court failed to suppress that identification, establishing fundamental error.

Prejudice to the Defendant

"[The defendant] must demonstrate that the error caused [her] prejudice.

Fundamental error review involves a fact-intensive inquiry, and the showing

required to establish prejudice therefore differs from case to case." State v.

Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561,568 (2005).

"[The Defendant] must show that a reasonable jury, applying the

appropriate standard of proof [beyond a reasonable doubt], could have reached a

different result" absent the corrupted eyewitness testimony placing the defendant

at the crime scene. State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 569 (2005).

29

r .

The fundamental error deprived the defendant of Due Process as the

eyewitness testimony should have been suppressed. That eyewitness testimony

placed the defendant at the crime scene, the home of Gonzales.

A reasonable jury, without evidence that defendant was at the crime scene,

would be unable to find the defendant guilty of robbery or burglary. Without

convictions on burglary and robbery, the defendant could not be found guilty of

felony murder. Without evidence she was at the scene, the defendant could not be

found guilty of murder.

The prejudice to the defendant is overwhelming. Without the court corrupted

eyewitness identification evidence, the Defendant would not be on death

row and may not have been incarcerated after the trial.

30

r .

ARGUMENT II

The trial court committed reversible fundamental error when it allowed the

prosecution to conclusively show the victim / witness who to identify and then,

minutes later, allowed the victim/ witness to identify the defendant as the

perpetrator, and allowed that court-corrupted identification testimony to be

considered by the jury. The fundamental error caused severe prejudice to the

Defendant who likely otherwise would not have been convicted nor sentenced to

death.

Additional Facts Material to a Discussion of the Issues of Argument II

The second conclusive identification, observed by the Amicus, happened at the

end of the prosecutor's opening statement on January 25, 2011. The record

dispassionately records her words as if calmly read from a teleprompter. "And

that conclusion will be that the State has and will prove to you beyond a reasonable

doubt that Shawna Forde is responsible for these crimes. And we will ask you to

find her guilty of each and every count in that indictment." RT 1/5/11, Page 32,

January 25, 2011. However, the prosecutor delivered those words with riveting

passion. Directly in front of Gina Gonzales and while speaking those words in a

shrill, attention-demanding voice, the prosecutor leaned and faced toward the jury,

thrusting her arm, index finger pointed, at the defendant. She prolonged that point.

The prosecutor conclusively identified the defendant for both the jury and the

victim/witness, Gina Gonzalez. Gina Gonzalez leaned forward and intently

watched. The prosecutor's identification of the defendant was more than

suggestive and it was unnecessary.

31

r .

The judge, who clearly controlled his courtroom, could have forbad the

prosecutor from engaging in her histrionic identification of the defendant as the

perpetrator. But he did not.

The judge could have suppressed the eyewitness identification testimony so

that it could not be considered by the jury, but he did not.

About 25 minutes later, the Amicus observed Gina Gonzalez on the witness

stand, claiming the defendant was at her house and was the perpetrator.

No objection was made at the trial to the prosecutor conclusively identifying

the defendant as the person to convict in the presence of the victim/ witness, prior

to the witness' scheduled testimony. No objection was made at the trial to the

allowance of the corrupted eyewitness identification testimony to be considered by

the jury.

A victim has the right "[t]o be present at ... all criminal proceedings where

the defendant has the right to be present." Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section

2.1, Victims ' Bill of Rights, (A) 3. The exercise of that provision of the Arizona

Constitution, where uncontrolled, in cases where the witness will eventually

testify, is a Due Process violation.

32

Standard of Review

"This court reviews, when no objection is made at trial, for fundamental

error." "To prevail under this standard of review, a defendant must

establish both that fundamental error exists and that the error in [her] case

caused [her] prejudice." State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561,567, (Ariz.

2005).

Discussion

Fundamental Error

"[The Defendant] must first prove error." State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz.

561, 568 (2005).

Per the first part of the extracted rule, "Due process concerns arise when a

court, intentionally or unintentionally, produces or allows a confrontation that is

both suggestive and unnecessary ... "

The court erred by allowing the prosecutor, in front of the victim/ witness,

to conclusively, more than suggestively, identify the defendant in her opening

remarks. Also, that identification was unnecessary. The judge could have

33

I .

prevented the prosecutor from doing such or the judge could have suppressed the

testimony and prevented the jury from considering it.

Tellingly, the Perry court noted that "[a] major factor contributing to the

high incidence of miscarriage of justice from mistaken identification has been the

degree of suggestion inherent in the manner in which the prosecution presents the

suspect to witnesses for pretrial identification." United States v. Wade, 388 U.S.

218,228 (1967) (emphasis added by the court, not by the Amicus). Perry v. New

Hampshire, No. 10-8974, slip op. at 12 (U.S. Jan 11, 2012).

"To establish fundamental error, [the defendant] must show that the error

complained of goes to the foundation of [her] case, takes away a right that is

essential to (her] defense, and is of such magnitude that [ she ]could not have

received a fair trial. State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 , 568 (2005).

Forde's defense was founded on the fact that there was no recorded evidence

showing her to be at the crime scene.

Gina Gonzalez, the victim / witness, was never recorded prior to the trial as

identifying the defendant as present at the Gonzalez house during the crime. A

few days (June 2, 2009) after the home invasion Gonzales could not pick Forde out

of a six-person photo lineup. Dessureault Ruling, Page 2, January 5, 2011, 2011.

34

Allowing the corrupted witness testimony to place the defendant at the crime

scene went to the very basis, the very foundation, of Forde's case, that there was

no evidence that she was at the crime scene.

Per the second part of the extracted rule, "Due process concerns arise ...

where the indicators of a witness' ability to make an accurate identification

outweighed by the corrupting effect of court suggestion, the identification should

be suppressed.

The corrupting effect of the court's day-of-the-trial conclusive identification,

via the prosecutor, of the defendant for the witness would likely overwhelm and

displace the witness' 600-days old memories of the intruder and replace them with

short-term memories of what she just saw.

The court did so when it allowed a confrontation wherein the prosecutor

conclusively identified the defendant while the victim/ witness watched and then

shortly testified, identifying the defendant as being at the crime scene.

The third part of the extracted rule is "Due Process requires the exclusion of

an eyewitness identification obtained through court procedures that made it all but

inevitable that the witness would identify the defendant."

35

The preceding rule, the third part of the extracted rule, is the clincher, but

some recognition must be made of the January 5, 2011 ruling.

Argument I, above, for a discussion of the January 5 ruling.

Please see

The January 5 ruling, allowing the witness to identify the defendant as the

perpetrator, and the witness' subsequent testimony is overwhelmed by the

corrupting effect of the court, when the prosecutor, an officer of the court, chose in

her opening remarks to conclusively identify the defendant as the perpetrator in

full view of the witness. The court could have prevented the prosecutor from

making such identification but it did not. The court could have suppressed the

subsequent eyewitness identification testimony so that the jury could not consider

it, but the court did not.

But the court failed to prevent or suppress that identification, establishing

fundamental error.

Prejudice to the Defendant

"[The defendant] must demonstrate that the error caused [her] prejudice.

Fundamental error review involves a fact-intensive inquiry, and the showing

required to establish prejudice therefore differs from case to case." State v.

Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 568 (2005).

36

The error involved here deprived the defendant of Due Process as the

eyewitness testimony should have been suppressed. That eyewitness testimony

placed the defendant at the crime scene, the home of Gonzales.

"[The Defendant] must show that a reasonable jury, applying the appropriate

standard of proof [beyond a reasonable doubt], could have reached a different

result" absent the corrupted eyewitness testimony placing the defendant at the

crime scene. Id. at 569.

A reasonable jury, without evidence that defendant was at the crime scene,

could not find the defendant guilty of robbery or burglary. Without convictions on

burglary and robbery, the defendant could not be found guilty of felony murder.

Without evidence she was at the scene, the defendant could not be found guilty of

murder.

The prejudice to the defendant is overwhelming. Without the court

corrupted eyewitness identification evidence, the Defendant would not be on death

row and may not now be incarcerated.

37

CONCLUSION

For all the reasons stated above, this Court should vacate Forde's sentence on all

counts that required a finding that she was present at the crime scene and remand

the matter to the trial court for a new trial.

Respectfully submitted on / / S& , /.)1l "M /; ~ ,a

By /s/ James G. McDonald

JAMES G. McDONALD

, 2012,

Amicus Pro Hae Vice

38

By /s/ Carla G. Ryan

CARLA G. RYAN

Arizona State Bar 4254

Local Counsel

r .

APPENDIX

AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES G. McDONALD

In January 2011 I toured the border from a little east of Douglas to west of

Nogales. I scheduled the return flight to Washington DC for four or five days after

the tour ended so I could see more of life near the border. I had heard just enough

about the Shawna Forde trial to interest me in attending a day. The press presented

the case as Minutemen, drug trafficking, and murder, all part of life near the

border. A day at the trial would be the perfect cap for my border experience. I

tried to attend one of the days of Jury voir dire. If I had attended that day my

larkish curiosity would likely have been satisfied. Room 3 78 was packed and the

guard said there was no space. He told me that January 25, the trial itself would

start.

So on January 25 I returned to the court room, arriving half an hour an hour or so

before the scheduled start. A juror was late and so I was there for almost an hour

before the trial started. I sat in the second row on the right of the aisle as viewed

from the public entrance to the court room. Later I had to move back a row or two.

A Hispanic woman was seated on the left of the aisle in a front row. She was

seated tightly between two other women. Later I learned the woman was Gina

Gonzales and the woman on Gonzales' right was a victim's rights supporter. The

other, the one on her left, was reputedly her mother. That day I attended all

39

I .

sessions of the trial until it was gaveled to a close at about 4:55 p.m. That was the

only day I attended.

Before the trial began, the Judge aggressively cleared the court room of all

potential witnesses. I noted that the woman, who I later learned was Gina

Gonzales, was not asked to leave. She and her handlers seemed to be court room

fixtures.

Before the jury entered, a burly guard brought the defendant, Shawna Forde, hands

manacled to her sides, into the court room and walked her to the defense table.

Everyone watched. Everyone in the courtroom, including Gina Gonzalez, could

now easily pick out the defendant. Then the trial was gaveled to order. Shortly,

the prosecutor, fifteen feet or so in front of Gonzalez, struck a pose, pointed at the

defendant, and dramatically declaimed the final sentences of her statement. I

could see Gonzales paying close attention, leaning forward, in both instances.

Shortly after the trial began, the woman, Gina Gonzales, was testifying and

identifying the defendant as the perpetrator. Only severe short term memory

problems would have prevented Gina Gonzales from identifying the defendant as

the perpetrator.

40

I was disturbed by what I saw. Later I learned that Arizona's Victims' Rights

likely played a large role in Gina Gonzales being present prior to testifying. I

became convinced that Victims' Rights needed revisions.

I unsuccessfully tried to convince some news institutions and bloggers sympathetic

to death penalty issues, that there were problems with Victims' Rights that needed

correction. I decided that I had to file a brief so that the proper authorities could

see, through my eyes, for themselves.

James McDonald is a member of the United States Supreme Court bar, the

Virginia bar and the Patent bar. He served on six juries, twice as foreman He

served as a Commonwealth of Virginia witness at a lethal injection execution,

observing that the process is not cruel. He and his family live in the Washington,

D.C. area.

/s/ James G. McDonald

41

I .

CERTIFICATE OF RULE 31.13(b) COMPLIANCE

The brief is double-spaced, uses a 14-point Times New Roman proportionately spaced

typeface, and contains 7,205 words, according to the processing system

used to prepare this brief.

/s/ James G. McDonald

42

r

When My Rabbit Howls

When My Rabbit Howls, by Shawna Forde Millions of us in the world have stories of child abuse that we somehow survived past, but that still stays within the walls of our memories, this is a part of my childhood, a glimpse of the pain in a little girl. It was a Fall evening when I was in the van parked outside of Nan and Pops house, which occurred almost every night, I wasn't allowed in the warm brightly lit home, ever, at 8 yrs old I didn't even ask, and I sat in that van up to six to eight hours, freezing often starving. This one particular night it had been almost two days since I had anything to eat. It was raining and very windy outside as we pulled up. In the back seat next to me was a bag of groceries and Hawaiian buns my mother turned and glared at me and told me I better keep my damn hands off her food and she would know if I touched them. As she turned off the engine and shut the van door, I watch her go to the door as they open it, she's all happy and grinning. So up from the depths of my little soul came a howl, so deep, so desperate a child wanting to be loved. I cried out. I howled to god to please, please give me a mommy, give me someone, anyone, just please god give me someone to love me. I howled like a raging volcano erupting a power within, forced out my cries to heaven, my little body was wrecked with my own grief of knowing, a deep knowing at 8, but undeniable, knowing my path was going to be alone, my rabbit howled. I sat on the floor behind the passenger seat and talked to god and wept, never at that point understanding why I was adopted, why I had no family, no real home life like all the other children, why I was left alone all the time. Often days would go by without food or seeing them and when I was around stuck in a van or being molested, never a hug, a mothers concern, a kiss, as I watched other children being loved and wrapped in affection, all this came to the surface as I realized, my truth, my dire circumstances. She came out after six hours of visiting, never looked once at me, but instead reached to back seat and checked her Hawaiian buns, brought the package up front in passenger seat, opened them and proceeded to eat some on the drive home, as I sat in silence my heart breaking. That seared into my little soul, I also received no food that night either. Somehow it was OK with me and from that night on I never looked upon them for anything and my only guarantee of treatment was rape on a daily basis, neglect and beatings. At 8 I knew I was alone and family would never be my gift. I would forge my way to survive with a foreboding glare upon me through this gloom of childhood. I felt the residue in every fiber of my being of the howling, it lasted with me for some time, fresh, right there on the surface. It was a self awareness that was very heavy for a little girl to carry. When we put the thorn in our hearts, we know, we understand. And still we find a way to survive. This was the first time my rabbit howled, and there were more to come.

Fiction vs Fact on the Shawna Forde case/trial #3

 Fiction:  The wedding ring, which Gina Gonzales (surviving victim) identified as her wedding ring, and which was found in Shawna Forde's property had Shawna's Forde's DNA on it.  To which the prosecution asserted proved Shawna Forde was on scene as the crime took place and was in fact the female that entered the home & stole Ms. Gonzales's jewelry.   

FACT: No DNA matching Shawna Forde's DNA was recovered at the crime scene, or on any weapons believed to be used during the crime, or on any of the stolen property found from the home of the victims.  Gina Gonzales did not say any of the perps were wearing gloves.  She did state "they", including the female were going through the house, opening drawers & cabinets, going through them looking for something.  That "something" she believed was drugs. To which she denied any drugs were in the home.  See below excerpt of ring/dna as introduced to the jury during trial.

See additional information obtained by PI and introduced at appeal, December 16, 2016 page 3 (can be viewed in it's entirety on the Shawna Forde blog, under pages, marked appeal). 

The odds of 3 markers out of 8 matching Shawna Forde are 1 in 2000 peoples.  1/2 the state of AZ would likely match.  Perhaps even more.  This was not explained to the jury.  Had it been, the jury may have not convicted Ms. Forde.  
 

Yard report, 11-17-21

OK, so after that horrible situation on 11-15-21 we filled reports, and it was the k-9 unit that came to destroy our wing, they aren't even suppose to do that, but they did, so their target was arts and crafts and pictures of children and native art. it was not our ssu unit retaliating for their bad behavior in prior shakes, but they stood by and said nothing and did nothing and was present as well as going in and out of rooms. so they want to claim " ignorance" when called on it " ohh wasn't me". but they were right there happy to help. so a all male k-9 unit that has no regard for anyone, the fact that they tore pictures of children, one of these ladies had two children die this last year in separate accidents while she was in here, can you imagine that pain, and then to have Bullies come in and tear up the pictures? we also have a native population and they went in and tore up their tribal pictures, why? then it went from room to room, as women just stand and watch, with men and dogs telling them to " shut the fuck up " no shanks, no illegal contraband, * arts and crafts and pictures.

Yard Report

 yard report. 11-15-21

this morning I was to go to my legal visit but was rudely yelled at to get to the fence, where I spent over a hour while they came with the dogs and decided to only shake my wing, which was in retaliation due to a inmate lodging a complaint about being targeted and harassed, so they decided to make a example and cover their asses on a harassment charge by search and destroy whole wing. " because inmates can't complain or report legitimate issues" so after 45 min I tried to tell the srgnt that I needed to get ready for legal, he basically told me to fuck off, then after a hour or so we went back in and they tore up pictures of children, poured water all over our beds, destroyed books and my legal paperwork, stole property we pay for, did not follow policy ( which they never do ). and when we tried to address it were laughed at and told to put in a inmate letter, very rude, very aggressive, all this because they want to cover up bad behavior or to prove some threatening point. took arts and crafts people are making for their children for x-mas, just a complete disregard, two weeks ago they came and because they didn't like a inmate took all her clothes that were soaking in a garbage can ( inmates use to wash clothes ) and dumped them on a sewer drain, clothes she paid for, just to be petty and a bully. * ACLU has doc in court in trial at this moment for major violations of the Ryan verses parson lawsuit** doc has been paying fines " tax payers money " instead of following settlement agreement, which has to do with our yard, the massive lockdown, NO Program, took education away, so only get 1 and 1\2 hr out a day, we already have a major issue again with self harm and mental health breakdowns, used to be 1) education 2) programs. ( self help etc classes ) 3) softball 4) exercise 5) art 3 hrs of rec and a additional 3 hrs for phase 3. so you could have 6hr a day. now 1 and half hour only, and two pods on rec field ( 70 to 80 inmates ) and two out of four working phones! so these women often can't get on phone, and when you take a population and lock them down with no options it causes major mental health issues and a heightened sensitivity, so it promotes even worse behavior, then to have a special unit come on yard just to bully and destroy rooms for no reason, makes for a explosive environment. I know for me its upsetting because we do so much to help officers and yard and as long time model inmates to be treated with such callous attitudes you can imagine how the less stable or women from abusive backgrounds feel, we are already treated as 2nd class citizens, specially women with death penalty verses men, we are stuck on a discipline yard and nothing additional, the men with death penalty get out 6-8 hrs a day. can hug their children in visits and don't have to live on a discipline yard. ( which the women are still not allowed to hug their children ,our covid restrictions haven't changed) CDC recommendations is visit outside, they refuse to let us visit outside??? and there is a designated outside visitation area. this is more upsetting to me knowing many of these women come from extreme abuse in their life's, and doc only enforces the attitude its OK to be abused and if its someone in authority you have no right to stick up for yourself, in a male dominant environment of authority. " but you better tuck your shirt in " so I had to refuse my legal visit, due to total disregard from them and no time to get ready, plus my legal paperwork ruined from the water being grown all over our belongings. this is Mon, can't wait for Tue! hahaha

Part 2 of rumors

 Shawna was so distraught after her baby died, she tried to kill herself.  Below are 2 hospital documents showing her stay & leaving against AMA after the death of her daughter.  

Time to settled some UGLY rumors some very ill intending folks have spread about SF!

I'm here to correct & settle the score on some vicious rumors spread about SF by a group claiming to know all about the case.  NOPE! They have never read the transcripts, the police reports, or the appeals.  They got their information from their own heads & other dopes claiming to have been there.   Let it be known the "Shawna Forde discussion page" on Facebook is Not connected to this blog or any of Shawna's supporters. It is ran by a small HATE GROUP dedicated to spreading rumors about Shawna Forde that are easily proven false and also dedicated to heckling Shawna's supporters.  

Rumors are best left to Fleetwood Mac!!

Rumor #1. Says Shawna had something to do with her daughter's death in 2010. Nope!!  Here's the death certificate that says she died of acute pneumonitis.  Acute Pneumonitis is defined as: Pneumonitis (noo-moe-NIE-tis) is a general term that refers to inflammation of lung tissue. Technically, pneumonia is a type of pneumonitis because the infection causes inflammation. Pneumonitis, however, is usually used by doctors to refer to noninfectious causes of lung inflammation.

Common causes of pneumonitis include airborne irritants at your job or from your hobbies. In addition, some types of cancer treatments and dozens of drugs can cause pneumonitis. > Per the Mayo clinic  https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pneumonitis/symptoms-causes/syc-20352623 

Death Certificate:  

Good news for Ms. Forde & some other DR inmates if this happens!!

https://www.azcourts.gov/ccsguide/Mitigating-Circumstances/FELONY-MURDER-LACK-OF-INTENT 

Ms. Forde will be released from prison if this passes.  CA passed it & released hundreds of "Law of parties" inmates.  Woohoo!! 

Update on Shawna & Fiction vs Fact

Hey you all!!  Rae here to report having spoken with Shawna on the phone & email & received a lovely card from her!  Her spirit is soaring high with the eagles.  She has several things in the works for interviews/showing she is innocent.  I will announce here when/time/date/channel/show when i know.  It may be some time as the indep. film makers take longer to produce things.  I am working on another fiction vs fact, it's taken longer than i had thought.  But i am sifting thru police reports i've never read before.  Alot of light is shed in them!! I will make them available on here soon.   I will link up police reports & Court documents to show proof of what i say. If anyone would like to see the truth on any subject matter, please comment or message me on Facebook. Thank you for supporting Shawna & for your patience.  ~Rae

That was good for me

 Shawna wrote this piece, which was translated into German and published in Tabor Magazine

That was good for me My life has been a sorrowful place, joy hides in shadows of memories, when what is prevalent in my past is being unloved, unwanted, uncared for and feeling forgotten by all. The bridges we cross and the smoke in our eyes after we burn them down, most would assume this topic would mean '' this has been good for me , has to be a moment of joy '', but for some of us we can't carry a memory of joy without the over shadow of misery. I am one of those people, what pain has given me is courage, pierced by the courage and loneliness I am surrounded by, this is good for me, the people and places that played a role in my life that participated in my pain and my love are the times I needed to build this courage. Times of collective joy makes the world seem less random, maybe its a coincidence or maybe its the answer to our prayers. I know that the things we choose that were good for us and the people and places in which we remember, our tragedies need to be included, they can be more relevant in who we are as human beings. Us that are deeply traumatized those moments are even more important. We are somebody, We are relevant, We are beautiful, We are pain. '' no man is a island, intire of it self every man is a piece of a continent, a part of the main, if a clod bee washed away by the sea, Europe would be the lesse, as well as if a promontorie were, as well if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls It tolls for thee... ''. --John Donne

The death penalty

 I have always been opposed to the death penalty. It is a cruel practice and is usually accompanied by torture, sometimes physical but practically always psychological in the way that people on death row are badly treated and dehumanised. It does not work as a deterrent. In England when thieves were hanged in public, pickpockets did a roaring trade at their executions, despite the danger of being caught and suffering the same fate. People in China can be executed for fraud and despite the publicity generated by show trials prominent politicians and businesspeople still commit frauds, thinking they will get away with it.

The biggest argument against the death penalty is that it is irrevocable. Clearly mistakes are made by the justice system; fines or terms of imprisonment can be reduced or set aside if it is later found that a person is innocent, but somebody who has been executed cannot be returned to life. Unfortunately, there have been many miscarriages of justice in the US. About ten years ago I went to a talk at a Quaker meeting house about LifeLines which I found very interesting, and I decided to join. LifeLines began in 1988 when its founder Jan Arriens watched the BBC documentary Fourteen Days in May and was deeply moved by the words of the condemned prisoners who were interviewed, and by the dignity of the man who was due to be executed, Edward Earl Johnson. I too watched the documentary and was also deeply moved and angry that this could happen in an otherwise civilised country. I filled in a form and stated some of my interests and Shawna was assigned to be my pen pal. We have written and lately emailed regularly ever since. Shawna is a remarkable lady. She is clearly innocent of the crime for which she was sentenced to death and has suffered all the indignities of the system. However, she has not allowed herself to be bowed down and faces the daily hardships with courage and dignity. Shawna is always interested in my family and what I have been up to. She often gives me good advice and has been a great support recently after my partner died and I have had some health issues. Although she is in a prison cell thousands of miles away and we have never met she has become one of my closest and dearest friends. Despite the conditions Shawna is a very fine artist and writer and has had pieces published in The Wing, the Lifelines magazine and some of her writing has been translated into German and published in Tabor magazine. She also acts as a mentor to some of the younger women. I admire Shawna immensely and I look forward to the day when she is released from prison and is able to join her friends and family and become a respected member of the community. Anthony Loukes

Arizona ‘refurbishes’ its gas chamber to prepare for executions, documents reveal

The state of Arizona is preparing to kill death row inmates using hydrogen cyanide, the same lethal gas that was deployed by the FBI in the 1993 massacre of the Branch Davidians in Waco Texas.
Documents obtained by the Guardian reveal that Arizona’s department of corrections has spent more than $2,000 in procuring the ingredients to make cyanide gas. The department bought a solid brick of potassium cyanide in December for $1,530. It also purchased sodium hydroxide pellets and sulfuric acid which are intended to be used to generate the deadly gas. The gas chamber itself, built in 1949 and disused for 22 years, has been dusted off and, according to the department, “refurbished”.

Over the past few months the Republican-controlled state has moved aggressively to restart its deeply flawed execution system. The death penalty has been in abeyance in Arizona for seven years following the gruesomely botched lethal injection of Joseph Wood in 2014.  Last month, the Guardian revealed that Arizona spent a jaw-dropping $1.5m on a batch of pentobarbital in October, a sedative which it now hopes to use as its main lethal injection method.

The Guardian’s documents, obtained through public records requests, show that officials have also gone to considerable lengths to revive the state’s mothballed gas chamber, housed at ASPC-Florence. A series of tests were conducted last August to appraise its “operability”.  Seals on windows and the door were checked to ensure airtightness, and drains cleared of blockage. Water was used in the tests in place of the deadly chemicals, with a smoke grenade ignited to simulate the gas. Some of the techniques used to test the safety of the chamber were astonishingly primitive, the documents reveal. Prison officials checked for gas seepages with a candle.

The preparation of cyanide gas executions presents Arizona death row inmates with a Hobson’s choice between two questionable ways to die. Should they opt for the gas chamber, they should be mindful of the last time anybody was gassed by the state.  Walter LaGrand, a German national, was sentenced to death for a 1982 bungled armed bank robbery in which a man was killed. The Tucson Citizen published an eyewitness account of his 1999 execution in which he displayed “agonizing choking and gagging” and took 18 minutes to die.

“The witness room fell silent as a mist of gas rose, much like steam in a shower, and Walter LaGrand became enveloped in a cloud of cyanide vapor,” the Citizen reported. “He began coughing violently – three or four loud hacks – and made a gagging sound before falling forward.”  The newspaper recorded that over many minutes the inmate’s head and arms twitched, and his hands were “red and clenched”.

Should an inmate choose death by lethal injection – the method widely deployed among death penalty states as the supposedly scientific and humane alternative to gas, electric chair or firing squad – they will also find the last time it was used in Arizona it was anything but humane. Joseph Wood took almost two hours to die when Arizona experimented on him with 15 doses of a then little-used concoction of lethal injection drugs. An eye witness told the Guardian that he counted Wood gasp and gulp 660 times.

In its current rush to restart executions, Arizona has selected two inmates as likely candidates to go first out of a current death row population of 115 people. They are Frank Atwood, 65, sentenced to death for killing an eight-year-old girl, Vicki Lynne Hoskinson, in 1984; and Clarence Dixon, 65, convicted of the 1978 murder of a college student, Deana Bowdoin.  A member of Atwood’s legal team, Joseph Perkovich of Phillips Black, told the Guardian that it was improper for the state to be hurrying towards setting an execution date when the pandemic had impeded investigation into his client’s possible innocence for more than a year. As for Atwood’s choice between lethal injection or gas, Perkovich said: “Neither option is tenable.”

The attorney pointed out that there is a discrepancy between the potassium cyanide that has been obtained by the corrections department and the state’s execution protocol which stipulates that sodium cyanide must be used. “This is not a small detail – the specific compound is vitally important,” he said.  Perkovich added that “Frank Atwood is prepared to die. He is a man of Greek Orthodox faith and is preparing for this moment. But he does not want to be tortured and subjected to a botched execution.”

Inmates who choose the gas chamber are strapped into a chair in the centre of the vessel. Colored levers are then used to drop the sodium cyanide into a pot of sulfuric acid under the chair, releasing the deadly hydrogen cyanide into the air.  Once the prisoner is dead, the gas is neutralized with ammonia until the chamber is safe to enter. “As a precautionary method,” the death chamber protocol says, “it is recommended that the team removing the body wear gas masks and rubber gloves and that the hair of the deceased inmate be ruffled in order to allow any residually trapped gas to escape.”

The documents record how prison staff engaged in role play during last year’s tests. Guards acted out as inmates who resisted going to their death, screaming: “This is murder”, “I’m innocent”, “You’re putting me down like an animal”, and “This is against everything America stands for”.  Despite Arizona’s best efforts to present its gas chamber as a reputable institution, the horrors of the past hang heavily over it.

Shawna's Testimony

My name is Shawna Forde. I was sentenced to death by the state of Arizona in March 2011, not as a person accused of murder, but as a woman accused of master minding the deadly robbery of a drug dealer.

At 42, I was arrested by FBI agents on the southern border of Arizona, with no adult criminal record. Out of nowhere I was turned into a woman who leads men and masterminds murder. 

When my trial began, the court was packed with media due to a high profile crime that had taken place the Saturday prior. A mass shooting in a Safeway parking lot had left six dead, including a federal judge, and left a congresswoman (Gabriel Gifford) in critical condition. 

My lawyer Eric Larsen came into jail that Saturday night hours after the shooting to tell me he had to throw my trial. He was positive I would never receive a fair trial due to all of Tucson and the country reeling over the recent events.

The prosecution had zero evidence placing me at the scene of crime, and no facts or evidence to back up their claim of my involvement which was based on nothing but their fantasy ''theory''. 

Then the prosecution proceeded to lie, cheat, and hide evidence that would've exonerated me. This blog highlights and showcases so many outrageous violations by the prosecution, it’s almost unbelievable! 

So much so, that even a juror from my trial came forward to make declarations and file them with the Arizona Supreme Court. The juror, after seeing my appeals on the online blog, became outraged that the prosecution had lied to the jury and used them to send an innocent woman to death row. 

These declarations are published on the blog as well for anyone who cares to see them. 

Valentine's Day 2011, verdict: ''guilty''. 

March 2011 I enter Perryville women's corrections, Lumley unit where they house Death Row. 

As I pull up at the gate to my new yard, courageously, I hold my head high and fix my gaze with indomitable will at my oppressors, with my hands and feet bound in chains walking through the sea of brown uniforms to my cell on death row. 

I made no sound as the intensity of the realization weighed heavy in my soul, the utter feeling of aloneness, a weak echo pushing my feet, one foot in front of the other. 

An acid test of my strength in a cold, stark environment as inmates stood with ghostly faces silently watching my decent into a hell of a new kind. 

Subjected to the treatment of those imprisoned in solitary confinement indefinitely, never allowed to escape the feeling of chains that bind me, forever to leave scars around my ankles and my heart. These chains were put on me whenever my door was opened, and my freedom was reduced to an 8x11 cell (as long as no human was near me). 

It’s an unspeakable, horrifying coldness. Being sentenced to death is barbarically brutal. Another elemental component of death penalty conviction is that of dehumanization. A death penalty sentence requires the violent restrictions and overthrow of the most important characteristics of humanity, the God given right of individual personhood; the right to life. 

As an innocent woman sentenced to death, for me there is nothing more evil than the unjust dominion over the very life of a person by some other person (or 12)--to be thoroughly erased by society, in an industry wanting only a conviction and a death, my death. 

The media plays a major role as well in social control by inflammatory information, motivated to produce fear and transform the image of a person from one being into another. Without facts, without truth, it creates an assumption of guilt. Later this can change drastically in the appeals process when truth and evidence is revealed; evidence that was hidden by the prosecution, now being exposed. As in my case, and many other cases! You would think this could restore the balance of the scales back to innocent but it doesn’t. To me this is criminal. And of course new revelations are followed by silence from all those who screamed how guilty I was; that a life was taken, and the solution to restoring the balance was to take a life, my life. 

Simple enough to form in words; quite something else to live through. 

Let the war begin. As most of my critics work hard and rarely take a day off to see that no benefit is ever received by someone on Death Row, nothing to resemble a life with any joy or human contact, not even a glance at any form of humanity… 

There of course is always more to the story... What I realized was the true war was within myself; my ability to express the beauty of the innate elements of my humanity. 

I had to pause, as the sunlight clasps the earth, I could feel the blessings upon myself and feel rays of light coming to me in waves, comforting me and securing my faith. My deepest feelings found a home in my heart as warmth washed over me, a warmth that goes deeper then my bones. 

I, who believed I was a prisoner every waking morning, waking up trembling at the will of others, had decided that I was my own person and completely free. This became one of the happiest days I ever experienced. 

I am a woman of earth, courageous, kind, strong, beautiful, a teacher, a learner and a doer, a mother, a grandmother, a lover and a friend. 

They may take my body, but never shall they take my spirit nor my love. Because we pay a price for everything we have and everything we are, ambition is not cheaply bought, but worth having. 

Service is my ambition, to help educate and change lives through me from my soul with love. 

My true measure of myself is how I treat others even when they exclude me from their moral universe with impunity and praise the decision to execute my body. 

I choose to live my life with laughter while bringing love to all those in my life. 

''Thy radiance in light will not leave me even if nothing will bring back splendor in the grass or the glory of the flower, We will grieve not but rather find strength in what remains behind''

Blog news

Our main blogger is recovering from surgery and will not be back until late June, we are sorry for the delay and lack of updates, we also realize how many are experiencing challenging times, and wish everyone strength and to find happiness in every moment you can . thank you for your support and time .

Fiction vs Fact on Shawna Forde number 2

Moraga had helped Gaxiola and another man steal between 400 to 500 pounds of marijuana from Flores a few months prior to his death, she wears the same size shoes as the bloody ones found at Gaxiola's house and she somewhat resembled the description provided by Gonzalez, the attorneys said

This is Gina Moraga at Alex Gaxiola's trial. Hmmmm... But there's more! Could this be a case of mistaken ID? I think so!! Moraga was Alex's girlfriend.

Fiction vs Fact number 1 on Shawna Forde

Forde's DNA was also found on an item of jewelry belonging to Gonzalez and found in Forde's Honda Element after the slayings. https://tucson.com/news/local/crime/forde-convicted-in-killing-of-arivaca-man-daughter/article_6ae561fe-386c-11e0-9555-001cc4c002e0.html The link is to the news journal depicting Forde as guilty. Now let's read the actual truth about Forde's DNA on the silver ring. Bear in mind, there were several pieces of jewerly & only 1 had a partial match to Forde's DNA.

Start with the last paragraph on page 3 of Shawna's appeal. What do you think of Shawna's DNA matching the DNA on the silver ring now? The DNA could match you or I with odds of 1 in 2,000. Why didn't Shawna's lawyers jump on this? Well, they were court appointed if that tells you much. And it should. Wait till you read & see my next Fiction vs Fact on Shawna!

By now most of you may have realized we are experiencing some problems posting on this blog. We will likely be moving to a new location soon. I will keep you posted on that. I will be doing some reasons why i believe Shawna is innocent of said crimes. I will be using facts, not made up BS. I will list links to whatever i use as backup. I will only use facts from Shawna's trial transcripts & appeals as back up. I encourage you to send me your questions concerning her innocense or guilt. What "Facts" or information have you thinking she's guilty or innocent? Let's find the answers from her transcripts & appeals. So much is not common knowledge on this conviction, it will blow you away!! ~Rae

 

The Wing of Friendship                                              

LifeLines Quarterly Magazine                           Spring 2021

 

 

Dear Friends,

Well, we are back in the electronic format for this issue but I hope we will be back to a paper copy next time. I am sorry I haven’t got room for all the articles you have sent me- please keep sending them, and I will publish them as soon as I can.

The post has been intermittent, and sadly I had no entries at all for the art competition this year. I hope some of you can send me poems and essays for our next competitions. 

Please be assured that LifeLines is still offering the usual support and services – please use the contacts page for email addresses and phone numbers or contact your co-ordinator.

Thank you for your letters and messages; I hope that you are all keeping well.

Sue Drysdale                                                 Copy date for the next Wing is 26^th April 2021

Vice Chair’s Message 

Dear LifeLines members and our friends in the US 

This e-Wing has been put together by Wing editor Sue Drysdale in response to the current Covid lockdown in Britain: we want to reduce the workload of the severely stretched Royal Mail and help most members avoid a trip to the post office. 

I’d like to begin with a very warm welcome to all the new members who have joined since the last newsletter.  We’re delighted to have you on board.  Many joined after seeing a BBC video featuring LifeLines members that was linked with news coverage about the horrifying spate of Federal executions greenlighted in the last months of the Trump administration.  It is some comfort that many new friendships will hopefully spring from that very dark time.  Our thoughts are with the families and friends of those executed, the remaining Federal prisoners and with co-ordinator Patrick Ballin, who has offered compassion and support to all affected.  President Biden has declared his intention to end Federal executions and opened a conversation about the death penalty, so we shall watch developments with cautious optimism.   

Thank you as ever to all LifeLines office-holders – trustees, co-ordinators, regional group organisers and others who do valuable work to keep things running smoothly - who continue to do a wonderful job in the current very challenging circumstances.  We welcome longtime member Edmund Conybeare back to the committee, on which he served many years ago, and thank you too to all the trustees and Michele Baxter who were involved in the superb redesign of the LifeLines website.  Take a look here: www.LifeLines-uk.org.uk     

You’ll see below details of the next LifeLines Zoom event, in April. Do join us if you can! It’s a great way for us to connect with each other and make something positive out of a grim situation.   

To our friends in the US, we know you’re still having to endure many restrictions and difficulties as a result of the pandemic, with visits, mail and daily routines all severely affected.  We’re keeping you in our thoughts and wishing that you stay safe and well.  To all LifeLines members, please never doubt you are making a difference for the better and thank you for being there for your friends.  Let us all hope that wherever we are, Spring will be the start of a brighter time for everyone.     

 

Warmest wishes, Jan Hall 

Facebook and Twitter

Follow us on Twitter - @LifeLines25 - or on Facebook; just search for the LifeLines group and one of the Administrators will approve you, pending a membership check.

LifeLines Conference News

Coming soon to a screen near you…again!  

LifeLines Zoom Event Saturday 17^th April

The first LifeLines Zoom event last October was such a success that we’re having another, on Saturday 17^th April from 2 to 4pm.  Robin Konrad, Chair of the Board of Directors of the National Habeas Institute, will be guest speaker, and the afternoon will also include other features of interest to LifeLines people, and time to talk informally with one another.  There will be more details of the event on the LifeLines website and sent to you from your co-ordinator nearer the time.  

 

Pre-registration - NB You must register for the event by 10^th April at the latest.  Please email LifeLines membership secretary Nichola Glasse on nichola@glasse.org.uk who will check your membership status and confirm your booking has been received.  If you’re not a member, please give the name of a member who will vouch for you.  About a fortnight before the event, Nichola will email you a link, and you must click on that to complete your pre-registration and receive joining details for the conference.  Attendance is free, but donations are much appreciated.  Donate here:  www.lifelines-uk.org.uk

 

Guest Speaker Robin Konrad will be joining us from her home in Montgomery, Alabama, where she is Chair of the Board of Directors of the National Habeas Institute.  The NHI works to educate lawyers, law students and the public about habeas law by developing and putting into practice the best standards for habeas practice.  

As an alumnus and former faculty member at Howard University School of Law, Robin is passionate about racial and social justice.  She has helped develop NHI’s pipeline programme between Howard students and public defender offices and is committed to ensuring that prisoners have quality representation when challenging their unconstitutional convictions.

 

We hope you can join us!

 

Some Old ‘Meant to Be’s

Realities of what happened to us,
It’s so very hard to explain,
Those reasons we aren’t together
A face without a name

I think about it very often
The facts seem a little unclear
A million questions to answer
Yet none of them are near

I was born to walk in darkness
You were bathed in the light
Born to two different worlds
Demons we both would fight

Though separate we are together
The regrets can never be freed

Shadows in every corner
Living some old ‘meant to be’s

R.E.H.

 

 

 

 

2020 in 6 words 

 

A Facebook prompt led members to sum up last year in 6 words- here are a few of them:

 

Look for new ways going forward

Grateful for friendship across the ocean

Very grateful for what I have.

COVID ravaged but on the mend!

Feel like the world's gone mad

Unpredictable; Transformative; Clarity; Community; Change; Ugh.

Learning to truly count my blessings.

Community spirit, love, care, wildlife, environment

Pulling together for our communities.

Groundhog Day. Groundhog Day. Groundhog Day.

Friends matter, letters matter, you matter 

Enjoy small pleasures, see kindness everywhere

Time to breathe and appreciate Nature

Sincerely grateful for what you have

A year of tears and heroes

Thanks but no thanks, wretched 2020

Pillow

You are the comfort zone to many minds and hearts. 

You are the last who simply cannot speak, see, or hear. 

You don’t judge. You allow the mind to lay down its head; 

To feel as a heart, our fears, our tears, our dreams, our nightmares. 

Like our heart, it is the center before our day is complete. 

In the midst of it all, you soak up the tears and heal the inner silence of thought. How we all rest on you. “Pillow Talk” you do not do. You are the mind’s security blanket.  

In hunger and in fear, you gave me your comfort and ear. 

As I tossed and turned, you still understood. 

For 55 years you allowed me to reflect without a word. 

My head thanks you for your protection on stormy nights, lonely days, you amaze.

Like the heart, you see not, hear not, yet like the heart this is where life truly rests. Pillow, you have listened to my many thoughts. 

You wait for me, not hate for me. Like a cello that’s mellow, in tune with my thoughts; Music only heard in my thoughts, you covered my tears. 

Yes, Pillow. You’re special in ways that matter most days. 

Gregory Esparza Sr.  Ohio

 

The Samuel Johnson Essay Competition 2021

 

We are pleased to announce that we are now accepting entries for the Samuel Johnson Essay Competition. Please send your entry to Sue Drysdale, The Wing Editor

Deadline : Monday 5th July 2021

 

LifeLines Poetry Competition 2021

 

We are now accepting entries for the LifeLines Poetry Competition 2020. 

Please send your poetry to: The Wing Editor, 5 Glusburn Bridge, Glusburn, Keighley, West Yorkshire, BD20 8DP by Monday 5^th April 2021. The editor can also be contacted by e-mail at thewingeditor@gmail.com. The 1^st prize is $40, 2^nd prize is $25, and 3^rd prize is $15. 

The competition is open to all prisoners on the row, but no more than three entries per person, please. Remember, you must be the author and your poem cannot have been published elsewhere. 

Winning entries will be published in a future issue of The Wing; other entries may be printed later. Please let us know if you would prefer to have your work printed anonymously and let us know how we should send your prize money, should you win. Good luck!

Appreciation: Art Giles 1959-2020

'Give Light and people will find the way'
- a quote sent by Art, November 2016.

As I am finishing this, a fantastic rainbow arcs down the hilly streets of my Yorkshire town over the local church where I requested Art, and others, be remembered in an All Souls service, last Sunday.

It's  always going to be special writing to someone on the Row and being part of their life, but befriending the thoughtful, intelligent Art - who has died in his sixty-second year - has been a privilege.
We began our correspondence the year I turned fifty. He'd been on the Row since my schooldays, yet his letters exuded a warmth and resilience that spoke of a heart at peace.
He stressed the importance of celebrating the beauty and happiness in the everyday, and consequently I began to look at my life and its blessings with a new appreciation.
There were sketches, quotes and word pictures, but never discussions on politics - I never developed the courage to attempt that! - even if Art's letters once or twice touched on them.
I would not have known from his letters of the (harsh) daily routine of the Row.
He never complained, had enormous resilience, and, despite illness, continued to have an interest in the world in general, and a concern for the needs of those close to him, in particular. (It was a revelation to me, for instance that he helped teach a Law Class, encouraging fellow inmates to continue contesting their sentence, right up to the end, as he did.)
One of his last kindnesses was to ask a friend, stateside, to contact me when he died.
When I passed on news of his passing to Mary, the Coordinator who'd originally put us in touch with each other, I thanked her - "it's been a really special experience" - and then I understood that quote: "Give people the light and they will find the way"; everyone IS special, but sometimes people need the warmth and sunshine of friendship to see our own worth.

(Thanks, Art; I was one of those people!)

Clare

Dancing Pixies 

On the very first January morning the bleakness of my drab prison cell was transformed into a festive party room; 

Filled with petite winged Pixies of shimmering bright lights. 

Around they went, dancing on the walls and ceiling, jumping, bouncing, joyous and almost magical.

Each moment seemed choreographed in a gleeful, mischievous dance. 

Though they were truly just reflections of the sun shining off the ice coated prisms created on the pointed razor wire atop the high fence outside my cell 

These brilliant bursts of colour brought life and hope, if only for just a brief time. 

I encourage you to look for the dancing pixies in life; 

Those we lose sight of when times are full of plenty… 

And we grow up. 

John E Robinson Sr, Kansas

 

 

Apache Blessing

 

May the sun bring you new energy by day, 

May the moon softly restore you by night,

May the rain wash away your worries,

May the breeze blow new strength into your being,

May you walk gently through the world and know its beauty all the days of your life. 

And here are my AZ Statelines:

Hello Everyone,

Happy New Year to you all :)

So, it's a mixed bag from Arizona this Spring. 

The Pandemic is continuing to cause problems and restrictions and to cast uncertainty over the details, and date, of the planned Central Unit Move - for the present, it seems to be off the agenda. 

All those on the row now have tablets but, in addition to issues with them (hard and software wise), there has been a huge problem with the new Securus eMessaging platform which replaced the basic, but bulletproof, JPay email. The problems are legion and they have caused a breach whereby many writers at this end are simply unable to communicate with their penfriends by email any more. If you haven't heard from your friend by email, this is probably the reason. I encourage all writers who are having difficulty at either end to post each other a letter explaining the situation, if you haven't already. Fingers crossed that Securus sorts the bugs out soon.

In terms of legal issues, Arizona continues to move toward reinstituting executions. In October, Mark Brnovich, the Attorney General, said that his office and the ADC have found a compound pharmacist to administer pentobarbital - source: AZCentral.com. Executions have been on hold in Arizona since 2014. However, this whole process will take time, as with all things row-related, and is by no means a foregone conclusion.

If I have missed anything, let me know for next time.

Best to you all,

Bryonie

Lifelines

Arizona Coordinator

Registered Charity Number 1168273

Jpay only for funds plz

 Shawna requests that if anyone is going to send her funds, please do so only via Jpay.  Never send via Securus, because Securus funds her media account only, then she cannot shop at commissary.  Thx!