The FreeJimmy Homepage
 |
|||
| Autumn
The Bay Christmas Sea Colors Going Home Midnight Mass |
My Place
Springtime Sunset Tomboy The Village April Mist |
![[Jimmy]](http://www.silvercloud.net/freejimmy/jimmy.jpg)
Jimmy Segura
Jimmy Segura, #B-99772, Correctional Training Center,
P. O. Box 705, Soledad, CA 93960.
We hope you will read on to find out about Jimmy's case.
THE FACTS OF JIMMY SEGURA'S WRONGFUL CONVICTION
Jimmy Segura, now forty-two years of age, has been wrongfully confined to prison on a life sentence for over twenty years. In 1978, Randy Bliss, then a homicide detective with the San Bernardino, California, Police Department framed him for the murder of David Leon, the twenty-one year old son of then-Homicide Detective Angel Leon, in order to falsely make it appear he had solved the crime. After David left an all-night restaurant in the city's westside barrio alone about 4:00 a.m. on March 26, 1978, Easter Sunday Morning, his body was reported to the police about 10:00 a.m., after it had lain sprawled in public view for about six hours on the steps of a downtown school. David, whose wallet had been taken, had been shot once in the eye.
But for another murder reported at the same time, David's father, Det. Leon, who was intensely disliked by many in the Hispanic community stemming from the time he served as a "one-man gang squad," would have been dispatched to the scene of his own son's murder. Nearly everyone thought the murder was revenge against Det. Leon, and the police and city officials were desperate to find the killer. Segura, who had nothing to do with the crime, was at home that night with his family and girlfriend. Defended by an inexperienced attorney who was trying his first murder case, Segura was convicted on suborned perjury procured by coercion by Bliss from two witnesses whom other officers later coerced into testifying against their will at Segura's trial.
The false evidence came Rick Riggins and Nick Cummings. They were then both users of heroin, as was Segura, who also had a prior conviction of voluntary manslaughter. That offense had occurred four years earlier when he was seventeen and fired at a carload of youths who were threatening him in front of his family's home less than a year after youths from the same warring neighborhood had shot and wounded him from another car in front of his house. As a result, Segura was well-known to the police and turned out to be a likely candidate to be framed for a murder he had nothing to do with.
Here's how it happened. Three weeks after the still-unsolved murder, Bliss heard from a Pismo Beach police officer that Riggins' victim of a felony assault had said that Riggins had told his estranged wife that he had been with two guys in a car in San Bernardino when they had killed a cop's kid. Although Riggins had made the false statement only to induce his wife to take him back, and although he denied knowing anything about the murder to Bliss for hours, Bliss falsely told him that they had other evidence that Riggins was at the scene of the murder and that he would be prosecuted for it if he did not name the killer. Exhausted by the assault earlier that day, as well as by a day of heavy drinking and hours of interrogation, Riggins gave in about midnight and falsely told Bliss that "Jimmy," whom he had met only a few weeks earlier, had fired the shot. The next morning, when he tried to explain that he had not really seen the murder and had only made the statement because he was exhausted, Bliss informed him that, now that he had a taped statement, Riggins would for sure be convicted of first degree murder if he backed out. This was Bliss' only lead in the case and he was not going to let it slip away.
Bliss' next step was to coerce Nick Cummings to go along with Riggin's story. To do this, he first had Riggins buy heroin from Cummings. With sales of heroin and several burglaries which he had in fact committed also facing him, he could be threatened with fifteen years in prison if he refused to go along with Riggins' false story. Bliss then arrested Cummings and kept him away from heroin until his withdrawals were very severe (he was lying on the floor with his shirt off in his own vomit). Then Bliss commenced interrogating him, threatening him not only with prosecution for David Leon's murder if he did not go along with Riggins' story, but also with the fifteen years for the burglaries and sales of heroin. When Cummings persisted for hours in denying knowing anything about the murder, Bliss brought Riggins into the interrogation room to persuade him. This finally worked. Cummings finally made a taped statement confirming what Riggins had said--but Cummings can still be heard on the tape whispering to Riggins that Riggins would have to tell him what to say. And, like Riggins, Cummings denied the truth of what he had said the next day. He had been kept all that night handcuffed to a motel bed, since the jail would have refused to accept him in his condition and have sent him to a hospital. This would have made it too easy for Cummings to challenge his coerced statement.
Prior to trial, both Riggins and Cummings tried to back out of their evil deals with the police. Both of them independently attempted suicide prior to trial, knowing that their testimony would put an innocent person in prison for life. Riggins was persuaded to continue with his perjury in part by fear of being prosecuted for the murder, in part because of a phony arson case which was brought against him, and in part because the police falsely claimed that Segura was connected with the Mexican Mafia, a prison gang (the falsity of this claim was later disproved by the Department of Corrections). Cummings was persuaded to continue with his perjury only after his very experienced and able attorney, Deputy Public Defender Bill Russler, appointed to defend Cummings on the murder case as Segura's co-defendant, withdrew from the case. This happened just a few days after Russler had sent the prosecution a memo summarizing the testimony he was prepared to present at trial from ten witnesses who confirmed exactly what Cummings had been claiming, that he had spent the entire night of the murder with Riggins and thirteen others in Riggins' apartment injecting Dilaudid, known as synthetic heroin. This evidence, of course, developed by Juli Seaman, Russler's investigator, an attorney who had just passed the bar and had been working as a public defender investigator to put herself through law school, meant that neither Riggins nor Cummings had been with Segura the night of the murder and could not have seen him shoot David Leon even if he had, which he had not.
Three weeks after he was appointed, Cummings' new attorney, David Whitney, now a deputy district attorney who says that he does not remember anything about Seaman's alibi evidence, but that he would have discussed it with Cummings if he had, convinced him to plead guilty to accessory to the murder. He later said he did so because it was good plea bargain for Cummings, because the burglaries and sales of heroin charges were dismissed or not filed so that Cummings had maximum exposure of two years in prison rather than fifteen. Cummings, however, thought he was assured of being placed on probation for not testifying on Segura's behalf. But the day Cummings was actually sentenced to prison, just two weeks before Segura's trial started, Cummings was offered a new deal by the police pursuant to which, by testifying in accordance with Riggins' story, he would be released from custody the day he finished his testimony.
This is exactly what happened. Both Riggins and Cummings falsely testified that they had been with Segura when he suddenly shot David, a non-drug-using college student who had supposedly been riding around for two hours with Riggins, Cummings, Segura, and Segura's supposed girlfriend, the imaginary "Rita," who was supposed to have been passed out, while Riggins drove around in her imaginary maroon Mustang Mach I, while they were injecting Dilaudid, drinking beer, and smoking marijuna. Notwithstanding the preposterous nature of the prosecution's theory--"Rita" and her Mustang were never found; heroin users do not aimlessly drive around in the middle of the night while injecting drugs, especially not in conspicuous cars when they are also drunk; how did Segura and David, who had never met, hook up with one another; and, even if they had, why would a "straight-shooter" like David, who had no criminal contacts, willingly go with them in the first place?--Segura was convicted.
Even though the court reporter heard Cummings' whispered statement to Riggins that "you gotta tell me what to tell 'em" when she prepared the transcript for the appeal, she did not hear it at trial, so the prosecutor was free to argue that the statement was not on the tape. This was never mentioned in the brief filed by Segura's appointed appellate attorney. Even if the jury listened to the tape during deliberations, however, they probably would not have heard the statement anyway, since the police were permitted over objection to play a copy of the tape which the defense had never heard. This occurred when the prosecutor claimed that the original tape had been damaged the night before it was to be played to the jury when Bliss had attempted to play it. In addition, the prosecution's criminalist and pathologist both concluded right after the crime that the body had probably been shot on the steps where it was found but, after the prosecution adopted Riggins' story that the body had been dumped at the scene, both testified that the body "could" have been dumped at the scene. Moreover, Riggins' admitted at trial that he had read the article in the local newspaper which appeared the day after the body was discovered which stated that the police thought the body had been dumped at the scene. The paper corrected this police conclusion in a later article, but by this time Riggins was in Pismo Beach and did not see it. All this is a matter of record.
Even though Segura's attorney knew of Cummings' alibi witnesses, he never called them as witnesses at trial. For some reason, he did not even call Segura's real girl friend, Olga, whose declaration filed in 1991 confirmed that she had been with Segura from midnight on the night of the murder; or his mother, who was also home the entire night. Nor did he stress the fact that, while Bliss first contended that Riggins had said the two-hour "ride" started "before 11:00 p.m.," at trial, after the police had learned that David's godmother had seen him at the restaurant she owned about 4:00 a.m., Riggins testified that the "ride" started "after 2:00 a.m." Segura's attorney did, however, bring out that, right after Cummings was promised to be let out of jail the day he finished his testimony against Segura, he made a statement in which he claimed that the others in "Rita's" car had dropped him off alone to eat and picked him up afterwards, an obvious attempt to account for how David could have been at a restaurant from about 3:00 a.m. until 4:00 a.m. when he started riding around with them earlier than that. He also brought out that, although Bliss had claimed that Riggins had at first said that Segura called to Riggins' apartment to be picked up, Riggins' apartment had no telephone.
But perhaps worst of all is Bliss' blatant perjury at trial. He testified that there was no tape recording of his initial interrogation of Riggins at Pismo Beach because the batteries of his tape recorder had run down. There is no doubt that this is false because, in 1991, the California Attorney General's office provided Segura's attorney with a copy of that very tape. On it, Riggins can still be heard to say many things utterly inconsistent with known facts about the murder. These include that the body was dumped in Del Rosa, in northeast San Bernardino, about six miles from where the body was actually found in southwest San Bernardino, at Second and H Streets, and that they dumped the body without even stopping the car, when in fact the body had to have been carried over forty feet from where the car was parked to the steps of the school. Significant also is Riggins' response to Bliss' question about what the parking lot near where the body was dumped looked like. Riggins replied, "That's why I didn't want this to happen." Bliss then said, "No. It's okay, you'll . . . you know we'll start with generalistics."
JIMMY SEGURA'S HABEAS PETITIONS.
All the details set forth above, as well as many more tending to show Segura's innocence, have been included in the nine petitions for habeas corpus which have been filed on his behalf. Both Riggins and Cummings have declared under penalty of perjury for years that they were coerced into testifying against Segura; that all their testimony was false; that Bliss knew it; and that, if they are prosecuted for committing perjury at the trial, so be it. Cummings first told the truth about his false testimony to Segura's defense attorney in 1979, but the attorney unfortunately informed the police about what Cummings was doing and the police, pretending to help the attorney get at the truth, instead swooped down on Cummings and the attorney and seized the tape of Cummings' recantation. This prevented the attorney from having Cummings tested by a polygrapher who was standing by for that purpose. No habeas petition was filed as a result of Cummings' recantation. When Segura's trial attorney informed his appellate attorney of what had happened, the appellate attorney wrote that it was the trial attorney's job to file a habeas petition. The trial attorney wrote that it was the appellate attorney's job. Neither informed Segura of Cummings' recantation.
Segura's first habeas petition, a very brief petition filed in 1986 on the court's form by Segura's trial attorney, was filed when Riggins, who did not know that Cummings had also recanted, first came forward with the fact that he had lied at Segura's trial. The petition was not even supported by a declaration from Riggins, and incorporated only Cummings' one-line denial of the truth of his trial testimony, with no details. During the pendency of this petition, on which an order to show cause was issued by the trial court, both Cummings and Riggins gave Hans Vander Veen, a district attorney's investigator, a detailed statement confirming that they had lied at trial. Neither Segura's attorney nor the court considering this petition was informed of these statements, so the court denied the petition, although he did so "without prejudice." Perhaps worse still, during Vander Veen's interview with Riggins, he made Riggins promise not to tell anyone that he had lied at Segura's trial because, as the tape still clearly shows, he did not "want to have Nick Cummings' death on [his] hands." In spite of this undeniable attempt at dissuading a witness, Vander Veen still works for the San Bernardino District Attorney's Office.
All this and much more was set forth in Segura's eighth habeas petition, which included for the first time Seaman's alibi evidence proving that Riggins and Cummings were not with Segura the night of the crime. Seaman was located in 1993, after San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Dennis G. Cole denied Segura's seventh habeas petition after issuing an order to show cause but without giving him a chance to prevent evidence at hearing which would prove his innocence. Seaman had been so shocked by the injustice she had seen in Segura's case that she gave up the deputy public defender's position that she had been promised and moved out of San Bernardino to another state, getting completely out of criminal law. She had saved her file because she had always hoped that it someday would be of use in keeping an innocent man from spending his life in prison.
In January 1995, San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Bob N. Krug issued an order to show cause on the eighth petition. He appeared ready to actually grant a post-conviction hearing on Segura's case, something he has never had. In denying the attorney general's motion to dismiss the petition because it was a "successor petition" (i.e., a petition raising the same claim as a petition which has already been denied), Judge Krug said, "As I read the petition, one can't help but be impressed with the fact that if the allegations which the petitioner has made are true, some very serious things have taken place resulting in the conviction of a person who is innocent of the crime."
However, the attorney general then petitioned the Second Division of the Fourth District of the California Court of Appeal to dismiss the habeas petition. This conservative court consists of five justices, two of whom were previously deputies in the San Bernardino District Attorney's Office, one of whom was previously a deputy in the Riverside District Attorney's Office, and two of whom were previously civil attorneys practicing in business-oriented law firms. A year after briefing had been completed, the panel of three justices who heard the matter (the ones who had not been in the San Bernardino District Attorney's Office) ordered Segura's eighth petition dismissed, which occurred in October 1996. As a result, on April 23, 1997, Segura's attorneys filed his ninth habeas petition in the California Supreme Court, case no. S060768. This petition consisted of 672 pages plus 1,662 pages of supporting documents.
Segura's ninth petition alleged the same four claims for relief that were raised in the seventh and eighth petitions: (1) that he was convicted on Rick Riggins’ and Nick Cummings’ false evidence, which was suborned by the police; (2) that the district attorney withheld exculpatory evidence from him at trial; (3) that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel (largely, however, because of the police deceit); and (4) that Segura is factually innocent of the crime.
On October 8, 1997, the clerk of the Supreme Court sent a letter to Deputy Attorney General Carl H. Horst, who has been opposing Segura's efforts to obtain a hearing since 1991, requesting an "informal response" to the ninth petition addressing two points. While requesting an informal response is not as strong as issuing an order to show cause, it is a very common way for the supreme court to obtain more information about a case.
The first point on which the attorney general was asked to informally respond was whether Segura's claims are barred under the doctrine of the law of the case by virtue of the 1996 opinion of the Court of Appeal, written to compel Judge Krug to dismiss Segura's eighth petition. In that opinion, the Court of Appeal concluded that, even assuming Segura's first through sixth petitions were inadequate and ineffective, as Segura claimed, the eighth petition was barred as a "successive petition" because it raised claims which had been denied by San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Dennis Cole in dismissing the seventh petition in 1992. It had been apparent to Segura's supporters and attorneys that Judge Cole had sought to whitewash Segura's case by coming to the preposterous conclusion that there was "almost" enough evidence to convict Segura even without Riggins' and Cummings' testimony when in fact there was no other incriminating evidence whatsoever. Himself a former police officer whose son is a deputy sheriff, Judge Cole also went out of his way to comment that the court found "no indication" that either the San Bernardino Police Department or any other agency had falsified incriminatory evidence or suppresed exculpatory evidence in the case.
Segura's attorney's are very concerned about this point, now that the Supreme Court has focused on it, because they filed the ninth petition in the Supreme Court without having filed a Petition for Review of the Court of Appeal's opinion in the Supreme Court. They felt that such a step was unnecessary since all the same issues are raised by the ninth habeas petition and the normal procedure when a habeas petition is denied in one court is to file another in a higher court. The attorneys are concerned that judges on the high court who are unsympathetic to any habeas petition, irrespective of whether the petitioner is innocent, may hold that the Court of Appeal's determination that the eighth petition was a successive petition bars the Supreme Court from ever considering any subsequent petition, even if one has never before been filed in the Supreme Court. Obviously, if the Supreme Court does adopt this unfair and novel rule, the matter will be raised again in the federal courts, although in the meantime Segura will continue to languish in prison .
April, 2005 UPDATE: In the past several years, Jimmy Segura has been denied in the state courts, the Central District of California and the Ninth Circuit. The witnesses that testified against him, and who later recanted their testimony, have been actively following the case and are amazed that Jimmy has not yet been granted a hearing. Jimmy has recently been denied Cert by the United States Supreme Court. However, his attorney and others continue to investigate his case and are hopeful of uncovering new evidence. It has been many years since the efforts to free Jimmy began. His family has faithfully supported him throughout this process. Unfortunately, his parents both passed without seeing Jimmy receive a new trial.
If any attorney reading this message has knowledge of any case relevant to these issues, please email one of Segura's attorney, Don Jordan, at the above email address. He is particularly interested in any case dealing with whether the filing of a subsequent habeas petition in the highest court of a state without first having petitioned that court for review of a lower court's determination that a habeas petition was a "successive petition" bars the highest court from thereafter determining whether the petition was in fact a "successive petition."
WHAT YOU CAN DO.
This website has been set up by the Justice for Jimmy Committee. You may write the committee at P. O. Box 6027, Sugarloaf, CA, tel. (909) 878-5566, or email it at
FreeJimmy. You also may write Jimmy directly at Jimmy D. Segura, #B-99772, Correctional Training Center, P. O. Box 705, Soledad, CA 93960. We hope you will contact us, as we need all the support we can get, financial and/or moral. While Jimmy was no angel prior to his conviction on this case, we believe that no one should be compelled to spend his life in prison for something he had nothing to do with, especially when he can prove it if given a chance. We are collecting signatures on petitions which we intend to send to the governor, since the local municipal and law enforcement agencies have refused to look into the case. Your email to Jimmy stating that you believe he should be given a hearing on his case will serve the same purpose.Second, if you know people who were in San Bernardino in 1978, you may be able to put us in touch with important witnesses that we have not been able to locate. These are Charles Hanford, Bob Cole, Michelle, Diane Sawyer and Steve Sawyer, who lived where Riggins lived at 966-1/2 Crescent Street. We are also trying to contact Butch Seachrist, Philip Del Tondo, Allen Feistner, Robin Weiss, and Gary, all of whom were at Riggins' apartment Saturday night, March 25-26, 1978. We also are trying to locate Mike Cotton, who was at Jimmy's home the night of the murder. You may email any information to Jimmy's main habeas attorney, Donald W. Jordan, at
Don Jordan.Third, please mention this website to your friends and, if appropriate, link this site to your own. While we cannot muster the support of Mumia Abu Jamal or Geronimo Pratt, as well as others who were prominent at the time of their wrongful convictions, we feel that Jimmy's chances for ultimate release are enhanced by public awareness of what happened to him. We also believe that all cases like his should be publicized, especially since we have become such a prison-oriented society, with no signs of let-up.
Fourth, please take the time to visit some of the prison-related websites listed below. You will learn that Jimmy is not alone in his dilemma.
National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys
(NACDL) website
For information about California prisons Prison Law Page
For national prison issues Justice Net Prison Issues
To report police abuse or misconduct GloboCopWatch
To visit an online art gallery, click on Artists At Work
Those of you who desire more information about the case may view (or print out) a more detailed summary of the case by clicking on
Segura Summary.![[BlueRibbon]](bluerib.gif)
The images at this site are for viewing on your computer during your visit. No rights to download, save, copy, print, redistribute or use in any other manner are allowed or implied without the prior written consent of the author, Jimmy Segura, #B-99772, Correctional Training Center, P. O. Box 705, Soledad, CA 93960. All rights reserved
Last updated 4/23/05
Webmaster:
Email: Silvercloud Productions
P. O. Box 65880
Sugarloaf, CA 92386
Tel
909.878-5566 / Fax 909.584-9382