home

Another Wrongful Conviction in Santa Clara County

By TChris, Section Innocence Cases
Posted on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 10:13:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It didn't matter to Kenneth Foley's jury that Luke Gaumond testified to committing the burglary for which Foley was on trial. After all, the prosecutor had God on his side.

Despite Gaumond's testimony, a jury convicted Foley and a co-defendant at the urging of Deputy District Attorney Charles Slone, who told jurors he was "sickened" by the "fraud" of the defense: "I'm not here trying to convict innocent people," he assured jurors. "I believe in God."

Foley got 25 to life for breaking into a truck. The sentence would be unjust even if Foley were guilty, but Gaumond admitted that he committed the burglary while using Mashelle Bullington's car. Foley had the bad luck to borrow Bullington's car twelve hours later. Police were able to connect the car to the burglary, and then they connected Foley to the car. They apparently didn't believe Bullington when she said she'd let a man named Luke use her car, particularly after the truck's owner picked Foley out of a photo array.

Prosecutors in Santa Clara County have a history of ignoring evidence of innocence while they pursue questionable prosecutions. Here's an example and here's another. The Mercury News documented the problem is a series of articles entitled "Tainted Trials, Stolen Justice."

Foley's first trial ended in a mistrial when a prosecution witness violated a court order by testifying that Foley was on parole.

The incident was eerily similar to the case of Darcius Butler, highlighted in the Mercury News series. Butler was prosecuted for a home invasion robbery based on eyewitness identifications. In that case, too, co-defendants contended Butler was not involved. Slone was the prosecutor. And in the middle of the trial, the investigating officer improperly revealed that Butler was on parole -- a disclosure that eventually caused Butler's conviction to be overturned.

Further (albeit belated) investigation has persuaded the DA's office that no gun was involved in the crime -- a face-saving concession that allows them to maintain Foley's guilt while supporting his request for a sentence reduction. Foley has been released, after about a decade in prison, pending a new sentencing. He still hopes to have the conviction overturned, although the procedural hurdles to correcting a wrongful conviction at this point are formidable.

< Racial Profiling at U.S. Airways | What's Cooking? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Another Wrongful Conviction in Santa Clara County | 4 comments (4 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Say What? (none / 0) (#1)
    by roxtar on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:22:08 PM EST
    How is that not prosecutorial misconduct?  When I went to law school in California, and tried cases as a student intern, I knew even then that appeals to religious belief were verboten.  

    He probably wouldn't have gotten away with it in West (By God!) Virginia; I can't believe it would fly in California.

    WTF? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 02:47:41 PM EST
    a jury convicted Foley and a co-defendant at the urging of Deputy District Attorney Charles Slone

    Seem like there should be multiple issues here. What did they feed the jury for lunches during deliberations? Roofies or something?

    weird US sentencing laws (none / 0) (#3)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 08:48:18 PM EST
    This is David the unconvicted* posting here, observing some more twists in the US justice system.  

    I've been registered as a futures broker on and off for more than a year.  I am not posting to solicit business.  Instead, as a futures broker, I at times read the cftc (commodity futures trading commission) or NFA (National Futures association) complaints against persons or groups who have violated US laws or NFA "ethics" regulations.  

    In fact, for entertainment, I sent a bunch of clients today a collection of stories of such.

    Anyway, what is amazing is that although the monetary penalties for fraud in this business can be severe, there are never or almost never criminal penalties.  At least, I've never read of any and I've read dozens of cases and their outcomes.  I don't know why that is and I have half a mind to write to Pelosi.

    I or anyone can read government complaints that go like this:

    Broker A of company XYZ repeatedly lied to potential and actual clients about the trading profits of
    A) some idiot untested trading strategy based on the conjunction of planets
    B) sunspots
    C) heating oil in months leading up to November
    D) himself in general
    E) all of his other clients or those at brokerage XYZ;  
    F) anyone who took his advice
    and Broker A repeatedly minimized the risks involved in futures trading . . .
    and Broker A repeatedly told potential clients that he would not let the options they purchased go down in value . . .
    and Broker A told various clients that sugar looked poised for a dramatic rally such as had not been seen for the last 20 years . . .
    and Broker A told various potential clients that they needed to get into the market as soon as possible, because every day they were not in the market, the market was moving higher and higher . . .

    The government will document the lies and omissions, and then they'll settle the case for a fine (and, just maybe, a restitution plan) and the guy no longer being a futures broker!

    I just read one case in which the government ordered a few men (brokers or the principals of a firm) to pay restitution of $150 million to defrauded speculators.  And I am not talking about a case in which it just so happened that the brokers and speculators choose a bad plan, but one in which the brokers lied repeatedly in order to induce opening accounts and the speculative trading.

    Well, wouldn't $150 million normally count for at least four counts of Grand Theft Auto?  I could be wrong, but I think "they" consider several counts of GTA to be felonies.  OK, why isn't defrauding persons out of $150 million some kind of embezzlement?  And, as for "child pornography," (which has in dozens of states since 1982 morphed into including nonsexual nudes of minors, topless teens or teens in lingerie) of course, the feds have mandatory minimums--or used to--of 10 years or so, and states like Washington also put you away for years.

    But, of course, financial theft from naive, gullible and at times stupid investors, in amounts of more than $100 million dollars, well, that only calls for a fine?  I don't get it.

    Is there a point cleverly hidden here... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 02:04:54 PM EST
    ...in what appears to be a completely off topic post?

    Parent
    Another Wrongful Conviction in Santa Clara County | 4 comments (4 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment