|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Death By Lethal Subjection Contents Death By Lethal Subjection Obstruction Of Justice Criminal File 1 Criminal File 2 Criminal File 3 Criminal File 4 Criminal File 5 Criminal File 6
|
|
Obstruction of Justice My name is David T. Sholes. I am serving life without parole and one hundred eighty years at Indiana State Prison. On January 30, 1997, I was coerced into accepting a plea agreement and wrongfully convicted on three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder. My sentencing hearing was held on March 7, 1997. Since that time, my attempts to seek relief, have been adversely adjudicated. The following information shows the level of injustice that occurred in my criminal matter and the lengths the State of Indiana went in their efforts to obstruct justice. The injustice took root when, in August 1996, the Indiana Attorney General reportedly told my defense counsel, Joe Keith Lewis, not to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense, a valid defense on the books in 1996. Consequently, defense counsel failed to investigate and pursue a defense of intoxication even though, minutes after the criminal offense, I was medically comatose due to extreme alcohol and drug intoxication. Thus, counsel capitulated an intoxication defense after the Indiana Attorney General threatened him if he pursued it. Still, the August 6, 1996 paramedic report and Wabash Hospital emergency room report chronologically establish that upon EMS' arrival at the scene, a few minutes after the criminal offense, I was unconscious in a drug/alcohol coma. Further, these reports scientifically verify my physiological condition, which included: .232 blood alcohol level (serum); positive drug screen for Darvon (actually, Klonipin), a sedative, and Pseudoephedrine (Sudafed); gross respiratory depression, 4-10 breathes per minute; fixed and constricted pupils; elevated carbon dioxide blood gas level; lowered oxygen blood gas levels; very high (sinus-tacky) heartbeat rhythm, while unconscious; elevated blood-pressure; and unresponsive unconsciousness that lasted several hours, all classic symptoms of drug/alcohol overdose. Initially, the State of Indiana came to me with a plea bargain two weeks after my arrest wanting to hurry up and get me to plea. Instead, I refused to accept the plea - thinking defense counsel was actually working for me. Yet, any attempt by me to suggest to defense counsel an intoxication defense was met with strong opposition and avoidance by counsel. Additionally, defense counsel's rejection of voluntary intoxication as a defense left me, who was completely ignorant of the law, with the understanding that it was not available as a defense simply because the Attorney General told counsel not to pursue it. Then, after seven months of intentional State-sponsored sleep deprivation, defense counsel denying me an intoxication defense and taking me in a circle, and the State of Indiana finally filing the death penalty in January 1997, the State of Indiana offered me a plea of life without parole plus 180 years. All of this worked to break me psychologically. I was convinced I had no defense should I go to trial and there was no other option other than to waive my rights and plead guilty to three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, even though I have no memory of the criminal offense. Hence, the Attorney General perpetuated a dubious scheme to keep this case from going to trial and to dispose of it through a plea agreement; thus keeping the above facts of the case (paramedic & hospital reports and my degree of impairment - the evidence that supports an Intoxication Defense) hidden from the media. Yet, an intoxication defense is the only explanation for what happened. It was not until after I was sent to prison that I learned "intent" is the element of murder. I was physically and psychologically incapable of forming intent that is why the State of Indiana and counsel wanted me to enter a plea and not go to trial. I know now that had I gone to trial, using an intoxication defense, the worst sentence I could have been found guilty of, beyond a reasonable doubt, is manslaughter (no intent element) and the best sentence I could have received is acquittal of murder. Yet, either of these two outcomes would have been met with overwhelming public outrage at the Senators and Representatives of Indiana who would have an Intoxication Defense law on the books that would let such a "monster" as me get off with manslaughter, or worse, be acquitted. I can make this assertion because, when I was finally coerced into accepting a plea agreement - life without parole plus one hundred eighty years, a citizen's petition with 1189 signatures was submitted to the judge to persuade him to reject the plea offer in favor of giving me death. With that kind of public outrage, what politician could keep his/her job if a law they established resulted in me being convicted of manslaughter instead of murder or acquitted during a trial? Because my case is so political, before my plea agreement was signed the Indiana General Assembly introduced and passed Senate Bill 244, legislation to abolish Intoxication as a defense, which had been on the books for twenty years. House Representative William J. Ruppel, who represents constituents in the city and county of the criminal offense, was one of the sponsors of SB 244. Accordingly, by avoiding a public trial, this matter was neatly swept under the rug and the political future of the players involved was saved from an already outraged public. Clearly, defense counsel was complicit in this dubious scheme by refusing to investigate and pursue an intoxication defense. Furthermore, the facts of my case overwhelmingly supported a defense of voluntary intoxication, yet counsel rejected this defense. Instead, defense counsel delayed any real pursuit of a defense to coordinate his efforts with the Wabash County prosecutor's filing of the death penalty, six months later, to coerce a plea agreement. Nevertheless, through my discovery efforts since arriving in prison, I subpoenaed documents from defense expert witness and toxicologist, Dr. Roger Maickel, that show defense counsel lied to me and failed to include with other documents provided to Dr. Maickel the paramedic and Wabash Hospital emergency-room reports that show I had lapsed into a drug/alcohol coma. Counsel failed to provide Dr. Maickel with scientific evidence that would assist his medical evaluation of my mental/physical condition at the time of the criminal offense. These two reports were essential to evaluate my mental capacity. In contrast, during my pre-trail criminal proceedings and before my plea, defense counsel told me that Dr. Maickel's findings regarding my mental capacity were inconclusive, and depended upon my "tolerance" to alcohol and drugs. Yet, had defense counsel provided Dr. Maickel with these two reports the results would not have been inconclusive and there would have been no question as to the degree of my impairment and mental capacity. making the issue of tolerance moot and a defense of intoxication viable. Clearly, I would not have pled guilty had I known all of the above facts. Instead, I would have fired counsel and insisted on going to trial. The facts in this case support my allegations. Previously, this information remained hidden from me during all of my attempts for relief from a wrongful conviction. Yet, these allegations are no longer hidden and have been presented for legal review on my petition For Writ of habeas Corpus filed in the United States District Court. It is my hope that you will be able to assist me. I will cooperate with any legal investigation on the issues outlined above. Accordingly, I thank you for your consideration of this matter. 
|