The State of Oklahoma v. Raye Dawn Smith, Case No. CF-2007-134 Defendant's Amended Motion and Brief in Support of Defendant's Motion for New Trial and Request for Evidentiary Hearing.
October 22, 2007
COMES NOW Raye Dawn Smith, by and through her undersigned counsel, Stephen Jones, and moves this Court to grand her a new trial pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 22 sec. 952. Having timely filed her Motion for New Trial on October 10, 2007, and to file a brief in support of a motion for new trial, together with supporting affidavits and other evidence and all parties and counsel having signed an approved order memorializing same and this Court granting same, submits this Amended Motion and Brief in Support to show that her substantial rights under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions were prejudiced. Ms. Smith will present evidence in support of her motion at the evidentiary hearing concerning the factual matters set forth herein. In support of same, Defendant Raye Dawn Smith shows this Court as follows.
Introduction and Overview
There is reason to believe that the case brought against Raye Dawn Smith may have had sufficient irregularities as to call into question the basic fairness that is the linchpin of our system of justice. And innocent woman has been convicted of a crime she never committed. In addition, she lost both of her children, one to death (most likely a homicide) and the other to the bureaucratic sweep of the Department of Human Services. These miscarriages of justice are, happily, only occasional, but they do happen. In this case, the miscarriage was not accidental or inadvertent. It was the result of a deliberate plan which was instigated from the venomous hatred of the Defendant by her former mother-in-law, the bizarre, erratic and unsettling behavior of her abusive former husband, and insatiable appetite of the hyenas of the media built on sensational and untrue rapid fire "coverage" as "news" so that they shaped the events and public perception, and finally the trial itself. If there is a parallel to another recent case, it would be the Australian woman Lindy Chamberlain, who was convicted in 1982 of killing her 9-week-old daughter, Azaria. There, as we now know all too well, half-baked and overstated incriminated forensic evidence and a profile infused with innuendo - including a media circus, and an unprofessional prosecutor - she was convicted and given a sentence of life. Four years later, she was released. The "evidence" proved to be "cooked" and "unsafe." Americans are, of course, familiar with the story through the talents of Meryl Streep, who played Chamberlain in "A Cry in the Dark." That case, and this one, are cautionary notes on how flawed evidence, perjury, overzealous prosecution, and a public campaign of vilification together with intrusive rampaging media which practiced no restraint of truth-telling, objectivity, balance or fairness can influence unfairly the outcome and skewer justice. Like the plague of locust, the media descended upon all participants and simply ran over those in their path, egged on as they were by a self-seeking and self-promoting ex-husband and ex-mother-in-law.
In summary, what occurred is this. The evidence suggest, quite strongly, that Kelsey Smith-Briggs was killed as a result of the actions of Michael Porter. Mr. Smothermon (the district attorney) has said as much. But, the Briggs family were less interested in Michael Porter than they were in prosecuting Raye Dawn Smith. But, there was little evidence to answer to by Raye Dawn Smith unless Michael Porter became a State's witness. So, incredible as it is to believe, the charged murderer of a two-year-old innocent child escaped justice by false testimony against his wife, the child's mother, and Mr. Smothermon and Patricia High were party to this disgraceful, immoral, illegal, unconstitutional and unprofessional travesty. The evidence was clear that Michael Porter lied about Raye Dawn Smith. He not only contradicted half a dozen different oral and written statements (both sworn and unsworn), but his testimony was not supported by any medical evidence and could not be, honestly. So, he bought himself escape from the possibility of a death sentence, of life without parole of a death sentence, to a sentence that might be modified in the future, or even if not, would eventually result in his release, assuming a normal life expectancy. Mr. Smothermon facilitated this because by so doing, he escaped the political wrath of Kathie Briggs. He had to have known that Kathie Briggs would come after him, as she did Judge Key, unless he went after Raye Dawn Smith. To prosecute Raye Dawn Smith, it was necessary to let Michael Porter walk away from murder of a child.
As a disappointing as these actions were, they do not being to compare with the lack of professionalism of the so-called medical witnesses who egregiously and unprofessionally dishonored themselves by manipulation of the honest medical evidence to support their view of alleged "child abuse." There was, in reality, little evidence that Kelsey Smith-Briggs had ever been abused until the day she died. The photographs of the alleged bruises and marks are not those of abuse. The fractures on her legs are not resulting from abuse nor is the collarbone break.
For Kathie Briggs knew from her own experience and observation that the Department of Human Services always opens a file and creates an investigation on a "referral." So, when she appeared in Dr. Andrew Sullivan's office, she immediately prejudiced the medical history of the child by talking about the mother and her "counseling" in "anger management." Dr. Sullivan having heard the magical words, decided that the child's injuries were the result of possible abuse and took the casts off. No primary treater of the child imagined child abuse. And then, to add to the coup de grace, Dr. Barrett appears, a man who exaggerates his credentials and ability in trials, who attacks physicians personally and professionally who testify to contrary opinions, and who even files complaints against lawyers who have dared to challenge him. Less known is the other Barrett. The carping critic, the angry polemist who writes articles for "peer review" which mainly consist of scathing and unprofessional comments against a host of doctors more experienced, more qualified and more talented than him.
All of these coming together---a benign court, a politically motivated district attorney, an available "assistant," a media in a highly competitive environment and a grandmother who sought to bring herself to the center of the controversy---all resulted in a failure of due process of law.
We end as we began, an innocent woman was convicted of a terrible crime. We cite here the authority and the evidence which leads to no other conclusion than that.
On July 18, 2007, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of one count of enabling child abuse against Raye Dawn Smith and recommended a 27-year sentence of imprisonment.
No comments:
Post a Comment