What you will read on this page, with backup documents at the links, has shocked even 20-40 year veterans of criminal law and justice.
[Link to quotes from prominent Legal Professionals]
This matter takes the criminal defendant's rights to such lows that nine prominent attorneys took their time to write declarations on behalf of Mr. Hazlewood.
[Link to Larry Hazlewood's message].
Attorney James L. Waltz's sent the entire, unredacted client file to the Court
Attorney James L. Waltz, now Commissioner of Orange County family court, appointed to defend his client against multiple counts of mail fraud, submitted his entire client correspondence file to the sitting trial judge of the federal court in 1998.
[Link to Waltz' case files] This was done for his own self interests, and destroyed any semblance of fairness in the proceedings against his client.
The package included the legal theory of "inevitable discovery", a theory by which evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment can be admitted, that was injected into the case, not by the prosecution, but by the Judge himself
Honorable Judge Gary L. Taylor read Attorney James L. Waltz's file on the case
The Judge read the file, which contained mostly that attorney’s own opinions as to why his client was guilty,
[Link to quotes from Attorney James L. Waltz] and did nothing about it. After reading this damaging information about a criminally accused over whose trial his was to preside, the judge should have recused himself to avoid the appearance of impropriety, or at least called a hearing to determine if the client even knew about the document.
The federal judge, Gary L. Taylor, admitted that he had read the document
[Link to Waltz hearing, page 7-9]:
“From the information I have, it appears to me that you are a difficult guy to work with.” . . . “I’ve seen copies of the correspondence he sent to me, and I know that there are times when you tried to get him to do certain things and he’s going off in other directions and things like that,. . ..”
The attorney admitted his concern was adverse to his client. “I think if you don’t change counsel, he could well argue a denial of a Sixth Amendment right to counsel.”
[Link to Waltz transcript, 2/9/98, p 18, l.7-9],
Having read Waltz’ suggestion that “Even if you win your suppression motion, which is unlikely, copies of all the checks can be recovered from bank records. The Government’s case will not be mortally wounded,” the Court, not the Government introduced the theory of inevitable discovery, ordered that it be briefed. And of course, the Judge ruled that this theory applied to the case and admitted 9,000 pages of documents that he had just ruled were illegally seized, as admissible.
Hazlewood was convicted without ever knowing about the violation of his rights
Mr. Hazlewood was convicted on that evidence in 1999 without ever knowing that the theory had been suggested by his own attorney.
A Habeas Corpus appeal under 28 USC §2255 is a last chance to appeal on the basis of a violation of constitutional rights, usually the ineffectiveness of counsel. While preparing this appeal to be based on the ineffectiveness of another of Hazlewood’s attorneys, this attorney discovered this shocking breach of attorney client confidence in 2003.
The matter was presented to the same District Court who had received the package in 1998, who denied not only the appeal itself, but a Certificate of Appealability that would allow the 9th Circuit to scrutinize the matter. In his denial of the habeas corpus motion
[LINK To Denial 2255]
The District Court Judge maintained falsely and provably so, that “the record reflects the government’s counsel first raised the issue (See Crim. Docket, Item #145).” The Order that Judge Taylor cites is merely his own unsupported statement in his Order of March 29, 1999:
“The Government has requested that, if the Court is otherwise inclined to grant Defendant’s motion, it wished to argue suppression is unwarranted under the doctrine of inevitable discovery. The Court grants that request.”
No such request was ever made by the government, and no attorney for the government has ever claimed to have made such a request.
[Link to Inevitable Discovery]
This might explain the government’s failure to file a response to Mr. Hazlewood’s motion for a certificate of appealability to the Ninth Circuit, due on March 15, 2005. But on that same day, he was taken from the minimum security prison to “the hole” – the Las Vegas Detention Center.
[Link to Larry Hazlewood's Message] Any connection to the pendency of this appeal is yet to be determined.
If you would like to comment or express your opinion in an open FORUM, please go to the A-Patriots-Act Speak Out! Forum.
Here are some useful links as to the violations that occurred
[Link to California Bar Rules]
[Link to Sixth Amendment]
Sincerely,
Nancy Lord, M.D.
Attorney At Law
Nancy Lord, Ltd
