|
From their Welcome letter
The Middlesex District Attorney's Office has a proud tradition of protecting and serving the people of this county through tough, fair prosecutions and progressive prevention and intervention efforts. The true essence of what we do is to protect and serve the public, fight for victims, and speak for those who otherwise would have no voice. It is a mission we pursue with focus, with passion, and with the utmost dedication.
|
This case had five different DAs:
December 14, 2011: Amanda Ravan
Jessica Hogan's Linked In Profile
Past
Education
Jessica Hogan's Experience
Administrative Assistant, Hogan Company
Responsible for compiling financial information from eleven restaurants.
I represent clients charged with misdemeanors and felonies in the Boston Municipal Court. I provide their clients representation in all phases of the court process, including arraignment, bail hearings, suppression and discovery hearings, pretrial conferences, trials, and sentencing.
3:03 certified Legal Intern,
Middlesex County District Attorney's Office
I worked in both the district and juvenile courts. I handled numerous arraignments,assisted in pleas, and second-seated a jury trial. I presented and argued evidentiary and non-evidentiary motions, as well as a bench trial. Additionally I prepared memoranda pertaining to my motions, assisted my colleagues in many research assignments, to include assisting a superior court ADA with research and a memo of my findings. Victim/Witness Advocate, Suffolk County District Attorney's Office
The duty of a prosecutor is first and foremost to do justice, not to win cases. Regretably, citizens do not have much opportunity to witness such bahaviour from prosecutors, especially from this idiotic femi-nazi. On April 12, 2012 in a meeting in court, the assistant DA Christopher Baker seriously attempted to shake me down. This was extortion at its best. He first stated to me that the state had a strong case and presented me with a list of all the damage that had ever been done to the car since Stephanie Harris-Hodge bought it . No explanation was provided as to how this damage was allegedly done.
DAs like Jessica Hogan never consider the innocence of those they seek to prosecute. This would be like a hungry fox not actually killing and eating a rabbit they caught. It just never happens in nature. A significant effort is made to make sure exonerating/exculpatory evidence (Brady vs Maryland) is suppressed by any means available or simply ignored.
During my trial, I saw her repeatedly interrupting me even before I could finish a sentence.
The complainant
Stephanie Harris-Hodge stated
Each time the complainant talks about kicking, she adds that I was really really scared. These statements of fear plays well with a woman DA and gets me charged with assault, even if I do not understand the perversion of the assault law (crime against a person) in Massachusetts. The charge of assault arises from the same act as the alleged vandalism.
The complainant
Stephanie Harris-Hodge stated
The DA Jessica Hogan asks...(Page 22, line 4) Did those dents or scratches, were they there before the defendant approached your car? The complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge replies No! No! Now the DA has acknowledged that she discussed the dents and scratches.
These dents and scratches were never seen by the DA when we checked the car. (suppressing exculpatory evidence) Brady vs Maryland)
The DA (Jessica Hogan) had a copy of the complainant's Stephanie Harris-Hodge's damage assessment report and Stephanie Harris-Hodge clearly testified that I caused all the damage as stated in the report (57 items of alleged damage. The notion that the DA did not question that statement by Stephanie Harris-Hodge was stunning. The DA also made no attempt to have Stephanie Harris-Hodge explain how I supposedly created all the damage. (suppressing exculpatory evidence) Brady vs Maryland (Page 25, lines 16-21) The complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge states that the car in the picture given to the court is not her car (Page 37-38). At this point, the court has available to it, this picture of her car with a readable license plate (669-GV6). The DA, Jessica Hogan failed to provide the audio or transcript for the 911 call that the complainant Stephanie Harris-Hodge made and was asked twice whether the man damaged her car and she responded with a No! (Page 41-42) Does the DA have any obligations to show exculpatory evidence (Brady vs Maryland)? I suggest that we examine the car parked in the courthouse parking lot. The judge does not object. The DA, Jessica Hogan actually objects to viewing the car (Page 52, line 12) I would object, your Honor. She's testified to what the damage are to her car and she actually went and turned over the paperwork from the collision expert. Imagine a pinhead DA not wanting to see actual evidence. This constitutes corruption by power and shows that she is indeed a primeval creature with a tiny stupid lizard brain. One has to suspect she swallowed a MinusIQ pill. . In all fairness, she might have been a Siamese twin separated at birth but got neither brain. Jessica Hogan is a typical example of the cluelessness and maliciousness of the Middlesex District Attorney's office.
The DA, Jessica Hogan, was with us when we examined the car door outside. She saw that there was no evidence of damage but said nothing on our return to court. She was conspiring with the judge. Does the DA have any obligations to show exculpatory evidence (Brady vs Maryland)? The judge and the DA, David W. Cunis and Jessica Hogan, on return from the examinaton of the car door, should have stated to the complainant that she had committed perjury, but instead decided to commit silent perjury themselves by not saying anything about the lack of damage. The DA, Jessica Hogan, looked at the picture, had the police report with the license plate as shown in the picture and did not question Stephanie Harris-Hodge on her statement that it was not her car parked in two slots. All Jessica Hogan had to do was to compare the license plate in the picture to her actual car when we were looking at it. The license plate was in the police report. She must have very bad eyesight. Is the DA required to show whether that was her car or not? Does the DA have any obligations to show exculpatory evidence seen (Brady vs Maryland)? David W. Cunis states near the end of the trial that I could only be found guilty if it was beyond a reasonable doubt (Page 107, line 17). The burden of proof rests exclusively with the Commonwealth to prove that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is a strict and heavy burden. The burden of proof is is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The DA, Jessica Hogan states (Page 110, line 5) The Commonwealth does believe that they've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did cause an assault, placing the complaining witness in fear of imminent bodily damage and as well as vandalizing the property which is her car. Question: Exactly how has the Commonwealth proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the complaining witness was in fear of imminent bodily damage? Is a mere statement from a woman stating she is in fear constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt that an assault was committed? This is the strict and heavy burden of proof?
It's discouraging to realize that Jessica Hogan was actually hired as an assistant district attorney. It would have been more appropriate to hire her as a village idiot. The judge, David W. Cunis convicts me on felony vandalism and misdemeanor assault and I spend 25 days in prison. On 11/16/2012, two weeks after the prison sentence ends, David W. Cunis still maintains that the complainant's testimony is credible (November 16, 2012 report, Page 2, line 13). On 11/16/2012, two weeks after the prison sentence ends, David W. Cunis uses Rule 25: MOTION REQUIRED FOR FINDING OF NOT GUILTY to reverse his felony vandalism conviction and now admits he had seen no damage but claims that any and all dents may have popped out. I guess her dents and scratches (Page 21, line 23) also fixed themselves. This is truly a miracle in physics. A self-healing car! The actual quote from David W. Cunis was (November 16, 2012 report, Page 2, line 15): As I reflected upon it and what was somewhat nagging to me was the fact we went out and actually looked at the car. There was no damage. Now, the officer's credibly testified to seeing a dimple in the vehicle which may have been the case and those things can sort of fix themselves, so I don't know. To date, the DA, Jessica Hogan, the femin-nazi has not admitted what she saw on the car door as she was standing next to the judge. In my opinion, this is outright perjury by the DA. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a prosecutor has a constitutional duty to disclose evidence to a criminal defendant that is favorable to that defendant. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) . The exculpatory evidence does not have to be requested. Exculpatory evidence is "material" if "there is a reasonable probability" that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed
If I submit an image to you (a photograph) as evidence, do you accept images from the web (as a URL) or must they be a paper photograph? If they must be paper, why must they be paper? Do you still live in the era of non-digital cameras? You do know that you can print them on a printer? The DA, Jessica Hogan blatantly lied, acted maliciously and suppressed exculpatory evidence. (Brady vs Maryland). |
Send comments to:
hjw2001@gmail.com
|