User:ILeverenz/sandbox

Anthony Shawn Medina (born November 5, 1974) was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Houston, Texas, on August 1, 1996 [1]. He is currently held on death row at the Polunsky Unit in Livingston

Circumstances Surrounding the Murder, Conviction and post-trial appeals
•	At approximately 2:30 a.m. on January 1, 1996 a man in the front passenger seat of a dark-colored 4-door car fired 8 shots from a AK-47 semi-automatic rifle into a crowd of young people outside a house in South West Houston. Two people, 9-year old David Rodriguez and his 15year old sister Diana Rodriquez were both fatally shot, while a third young lady was seriously wounded.

•	Police investigators who arrived on the scene found 8 fired cartridges scattered on the street, with bullet-strike marks on the front door and wall, and holes in 2 cars parked at the residence. Although there was a street light nearby, no one at the crime scene could identify the perpetrator. The owner of the house, who was the uncle of the two Rodriquez children, told the police that his house had been the target of previous crimes by the LRZ-13 gang because his daughter was dating a possible gang member from a rival gang. Tony Medina was identified as a member of LRZ-13.

•	On January 5, 1996 Tony Medina was arrested. He was first arrested for allegedly running a stop sign, then later charged with a unrelated probation violation. On January 12, 1996, after other LRZ-13 gang members gave statements pointing to Mr. Medina, he was charged with Capital Murder in this crime.

•	On March 7, 1996, acting on a tip, police searched property next door to a female gang member of the LRZ-13 gang. They discovered 2 semi-automatic rifles wrapped in plastic bags buried in the field. Testimony by a State forensic official claimed a match between cartridges found at the scene of the murder and one of the rifles.

•	Tony Medina’s trial began on July 24, 1996. A jury decided Medina was guilty on July 29, 1996. Sentencing was completed on August 1, 1996

•	A habeas corpus appeal to the State Court in Houston was submitted on 21st November 2001. Nearly eight years later, on May 26, 2009 State Judge Marc Carter signed the D.A.`s "Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" and recommended to the CCA that Medina be denied habeas relief.

With the ending of the State process, the Appeals transfer to the Federal court. New attorneys, Jim Marcus and Robert McGlasson, were appointed to replace Morris Moon, and to revise a further petition for Habeas Corpus. First submission is due April 14, 2011.

Issues And Claims Surrounding The Case
•	Many facts suggest Tony Medina’s trial conviction was unreliable and that he was not the murderer.

•	There are many indications that investigations and the actual trial proceedings were handled negligently and improperly by both the prosecution and the defense. Jury Selection for Tony Medina`s trial began on July 15, 1996. Nine days later, despite the fact that defense attorneys, John A. Millin and Gerard Guerinot, were unprepared and had not conducted even a basic investigation into their clients case, the trial began.

•	Forensic testing identified the only print on the murder weapon as a palm print belonging to Dominic Holmes, a LRZ-13 gang member.

•	A witnesses, who lives near the crime scene, can testify he saw two black men shooting a rifle in front of his house seconds before the drive-by killing occurred. Tony Medina is a light-skinned Mexican-American.

•	Witness statements confirm that Tony Medina was not at the scene during the crime. Rather he was at a party with friends miles away.

•	Many other important witnesses were never called before the court because the District Attorney withheld crucial evidence from the defense.

•	The judge who presided over the Trial proceedings was not, at the time, sworn in as a judge. Further more, one of the jury members had previous criminal convictions, which by law should have barred her from jury selection.

Habeas Corpus
The initial Petition for Relief of Habeas Corpus [2], submitted by Morris Moon, focused on the following. (An amended petition to be presented shortly by attorneys Jim Marcus and Robert McGlasson may refocus this petition.)

1.	Suppression of evidence and false testimony

The Appeal requests that relief be given on the grounds described by Brady v. Maryland, that habeas relief is warranted when the State suppresses evidence favorable to the defendant [2] :

•	Leon Guy, a key witness for the prosecution, had significant criminal convictions that could have been used to impeach his testimony, and was on parole at the time. This should have been disclosed to the defense.

•	Maurice Argueta was not only charged for a sexual assault on the morning he testified against Medina, but had other prior convictions. This should have been disclosed to the defense.

•	Dominic Holmes, according to police records, was the main suspect prior to the arrest of Medina, and admitted being in the drive-by vehicle. He was arrested after crashing a stolen car and fled police before arrest. There is documentary evidence suggesting a deal was struck for his testimony against Medina. None of this was disclosed to the defense at the time of trial.

•	James Alfred Moore III was the admitted driver of the vehicle but again his character was knowingly misrepresented and prior convictions were not wholly disclosed.

•	Information relating to a previous drive-by shooting probably by a LRZ-13 gang member who could not have been Medina (because he was incarcerated at the time) was also withheld from the defense and jury.

•	Johnny Valdez was charged with Capital Murder ahead of Medina but charges were dropped when he agreed to testify against him. As Valdez was a juvenile, Medina could only have discovered his criminal history and charges made against him with the help of the court. This was withheld.

•	In all of these examples, disclosure would have destroyed the credibility of principal prosecution witnesses, and rendered their testimony as utterly unreliable.

Giglio v United States provides that habeas relief is warranted when the State knowingly permits false testimony [2]

•	The identification of Medina by Maurice Arguenta was a good deal less certain than the impression given to the jury, and relied at investigative interview and at court on prosecuting prompting. The unreliability of his evidence was deliberately masked by strategic questioning in court, and important evidence of Medina’s supposed gun handling at an earlier party was given credence that it did not deserve.

•	The state misrepresented gun fragments evidence of a prior drive-by attack as definitely linked to the second, yet there was no evidence that these fragments came from cartridges delivered by the weapons recovered in the investigation.

2.	Ineffective assistance of counsel - Strickland v Washington

•	Mr Guerinot and Mr Millin allowed the trial to go ahead after only 6 months during which time they used only 30 hours of investigation. During this period Mr Millan was suffering the effects of cancer and had an impossible work load including two other Capital cases both of which ended in death sentences. Mr Millin died less than 2 months following Medina’s trial.

•	Mr Guerinot’s workload in the period was even more staggering, having tried three other Capital cases each of which ended in a death sentence, and other felony cases besides.

•	The 30 hours investigation and preparation undertaken by defense council contrasts with the average 600 hours that Clive Stafford-Smith, an experienced Capital murder defense attorney, states is necessary for a complex case such as this [3].

•	Specifically, trial counsel failed to seek disclosure of informant and identity of crimestoppers callers. Trial counsel’s failure to request disclosure of the informant and Crimestopper’s information was unreasonable. The Crimestopper’s tips, the statement of confidential informant, and the identity of the informant, constituted material evidence which, if presented to the jury, would reasonably have caused a different outcome in Mr Medina’s case

•	Trial counsel failed to timely challenge the Harris County grand jury system which seriously under represents Hispanics in the jury process.

•	Ineffective assistance of counsel – counsel failed to engage meaningfully and effectively in the Voir Dire process, so abdicating responsibility for impartial jury selection. Specifically, there was a failure to strike jurors for cause; there was a failure to use voir dire to develop cause challenges; there was a failure to question jurors about potential bias towards gangs; and there was a failure to question a juror who was absolutely disqualified.

•	Trial counsel failed to make an opening statement, thus failing to counter the State’s theory in the eyes of the jury. No defense theory was offered and no context for the evidence to be heard was given.

•	Trial counsel failed to challenge inadmissible, irrelevant and misleading evidence of extraneous offenses, allowing the prosecution to prejudicially link Medina to gang activities – links that could not be proven. Specifically these extraneous offenses were a prior drive-by shooting; a fire bombing; graffiti; destruction of a vehicle; alleged aggravated assault; and others. The prosecution offered no reliable evidence of a linkage to Tony Medina in any of these incidents.

•	Trial counsel failed to move in limine to exclude extraneous offenses or properly object to their admission during trial.

•	Trial counsel failed to request a limiting instruction or a reasonable doubt instruction.

•	Counsel failed to make the jury aware that bullets introduced by the State from a previous drive-by shooting were not fired from the murder weapon.

•	Counsel failed to object to pervasive gang references.

•	Trial counsel failed to impeach State witnesses with readily available impeachment material.

•	Mr Medina’s counsel failed to adequately investigate and introduce into evidence information that would have demonstrated his innocence. Had trial counsel investigated diligently, there is a reasonable probability that the trail outcome would have been different.

•	Trial counsel failed to secure independent testing on the State’s firearms evidence.

3.	Mr Medina was denied effective assistance of counsel at the punishment phase of his trial. Specifically:

•	The factual background of the case was presented in a mere three hours and twenty five minutes. Of this, the defense evidence was presented in just one hour and five minutes. This severely denied the defense witnesses opportunities to create a positive image of Mr Medina.

•	Mr Guerinot left responsibility for the development of the Defense’s punishment phase completely in the hands of Mr Millin, who was gravely and terminally ill and could not devote the necessary time and energy to develop a case in favor of a life sentence.

•	Counsel missed available rebuttal to the State’s witnesses.

•	The was failure to object to the court’s response to jury’s questions about alcohol.

•	The was a failure to obtain/review jail records to support counsel’s attempted argument that Mr Medina’s jail records were free of disciplinary problems.

•	Trial counsel failed to obtain recidivism statistics supporting his closing argument.

•	Trial counsel failed to make specific objections to the jury charge which inaccurately stated the law.

•	There was a failure to obtain the services of a mental health expert, despite the court authorizing funding.

•	Counsel failed to investigate and present copious, compelling mitigating evidence counseling in favor of a life sentence.

Instructions by the court to the jury violated the due course of law provision of the Texas Constitution 1 and 4. Instructions to the jury violated the United States Constitution.

The errors and deviance from appropriate performance of the prosecution, defense counsel, and the court were not harmless, and the verdict and sentence against Tony Medina is unsafe. Mr Medina’s long stay on death row for a crime he did not commit, constitutes cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Articles and TV Coverage
On July 19, 2005 Article in the newspaper (German) Münstersche Zeitung

On August 15, 2005 Article Das Ende vor Augen in the newspaper (German) Tagesspiegel by Ingo Wolff

On October 6, 2005 Article in the newspaper (German) Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung

On October 24, 2005 Radio program (German) OSRADIO

On November 5, 2005 Article in the newspaper (German) Badische Zeitung

On December 3, 2005 Article in the newspaper (German) Die Rheinpfalz On March 26, 2006 TV program on MDR Windrose (German) about Tony Medina and his case

On March 26, 2006 Article in MDR Windrose Warten in der Todeszelle (German)

On March 3, 2007 Radio program " The Ellen Lynch Show " (Ireland) about Tony Medina

On April 10, 2007 Radio program " Wild Bunch Radio " (England) about Tony Medina On September 5, 2007 TV program on MDR hier ab 4 (German) about Tony Medina and his case

On June 13, 2009 TV program on finnish TV about Tony Medina and his case

On June 13, 2009 Article in the newspaper from finnish

On September 2009 Article by Caroline Planque in Journal de I`abolition - Interview with Golda Medina, Mother of DR inmate #999204 Anthony Medina

On September 2010 TV programv The Road to Livingston - Interview with Golda Medina, Mother from Anthony Medina

On October, 2011 Cinema/Trailer (Cinema October`11) "HONK" about Tony Medina & Interview with Golda Medina (Mother)

On November 4, 2011 TV program on my Fox Houston about Tony Medina and his book Witness to Murder

On November 4, 2011 Article my Fox Houston Crime-Victims Advocate Calls It Poetic Injustice by Ned Hibberd Reporter

On November 21, 2011 TV program on my Fox Houston about Tony Medina and his book Witness to Murder by Ned Hibberd

On November 21, 2011 Article my Fox Houston Death Row Author Draws Ire of Some by Ned Hibberd Reporter