Links:
"And thus I clothe my naked villany,
With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ,
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."
Richard III (I, iii, 336-338)
The Trial
For
Prosecutor Fred Hugi and his associates their endeavours with Christie paid
off. She entered the
witness stand and lied about her mom. You
cannot hold the child to account for this. The Prosecution
denied
accusation's of coercion regarding Christie. State Hospital
Psychiatrist Dr Vergamini disagreed
with Christie’s testimony.
Following his own examination of the child he recorded in his medical notes
that she... 'genuinely did not know what happened to her on the night of the
shooting'. Defense Attorney,
Jagger did not call Dr Vergamini as a witness.
Nor did the Prosecutor who had appointed him.
Jury
Deliberation
The
jury was sequested June 13, 1984. On June 16, 1984, at 6:00 p.m.
after four days of deliberating,
the jury foreman, Daniel Bendt, sent a note
to Judge Foote, stating the jurors were deadlocked and there was no hope of
a resolution. At 6: 30 p.m., Judge Foote (knowing Father's Day was
just six hours
away and that the jury would be sequested until he released
them) ordered the jurors to continue
deliberating until they'd reached a 'unanimous' decision.
There
are two major problems with those jury instructions, (App, 79) :
(1) The jury HAD in fact reached a 'unanimous' decision....they were all agreed
they were 'deadlocked'.
(2) When the Court ordered the jurors to continue deliberating until they
reached a 'unanimous' decision, it was directing them
The
Court's pressure-cooker tactic designed to turn up the heat in the jury room
then season the pot with its own expectations, served to produce a
verdict made to order by the Court. Diane does not accuse the Court of
intentionally tampering with the jury verdict anymore than a drunk driver
intends to run
down a pedestrian but that's what happened. The jury remained
divided another six hours before they returned the 'prescribed', 'unanimous'
verdict of guilty, on June 17, 1984, at 12:15 a.m... Father's Day,
(case
no.10-84-01377) .
to tender a 'guilty'
verdict. A verdict to acquit requires only 'ten' votes, not a
'unanimous twelve'.
Dr Polly Jamison
Dr. Polly Jamison treated
Diane in psychotherapy between August 5, 1983, and February 7, 1984.
This was to help her cope with the shooting and also the continual
harassment by the police. And although she stood ready to testify on behalf of Diane she was never
called. Not surprisingly she became very concerned when she
read in the newspaper that Prosecutor Fred Hugi had told the
jury that she had
diagnosed Diane a 'deviant sociopath'. First of all because it was
a lie and secondly because such a disorder
does not exist. The claim was criminally
slanderous. After treatment and tests and consultation with a senior
colleague Dr. Jamison's
finally diagnosed Diane with, 'Cyclothymic disorder' (which is basically
short periods of mild depression alternating with short periods of hypomania
or unrealistic optimism). Hardly the pathology to kill. The
obvious purpose of the Prosecutor's lie
was to convince the jury that Diane was a psycho and
capable of murder. The lie was necessary because it
stands to reason,
psychologically healthy people don't kill their children. Dr. Jamison
waited in vain.
Diane's Attorney, James Jagger never called her as a witness, explaining that he... "didn't want
to put her (Dr
Jamison) and her family through the trial" (App 10 and 11). It
beggars belief. Mr. Jagger
allowed the jury to deliberate with the
false impression that Diane had been diagnosed a 'deviant
sociopath'. He
never even objected to the allegation made by the Prosecutor. Barred
from the stand, Dr. Jamison took her written objections to Prosecutor Hugi
(App 40, p. 1), in which she stated the
following: "I
want you to know that I did not diagnose Diane with that diagnosis...plus
Diane's score on
the Pd scale (scale # 4) is within normal limits.
A copy of this letter accompanied a short note to Mr. Jagger (App 40, p. 2), and Judge Foote, June 13, 1984. Dr. Jamison could have been called to testify on behalf of Diane (App 101, p.588). In fact, she should have been called in light of the fact that Prosecutor Hugi claimed Dr. Jamison labeled Diane a 'deviant sociopath' when in truth she never did (App 101, p. 618). The lie tainted the jury and Mr. Jagger actively barred Dr. Jamison from testifying on behalf of his client. Thereby doubling the jury's belief that Diane was deviant and sociopathic. Dr. Jamison's letter to Prosecutor Hugi and Mr. Jagger at the close of trial left no doubt Diane tested normal on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory scale (MMPI), (App 101, p.572 and App 40). And Mr. Jagger admitted in 1991 he knew Diane was not a deviant sociopath, (App100, p. 413). Mr. Jagger should have called Dr. Jamison to testify to the Prosecutor's outrageous lie, but he did not (during one of Diane's, post-trial Hearings, Attorney's were persistently shouted down by the judge when trying to make important points of judicial wrongdoing which had occurred during Diane's (1984) trial).
The
significance of this lie by Prosecutor Hugi was borne out in the jury
verdict itself. In the first day of
the jury's deliberations, not
one of these officers of the court did anything to correct the jury's false
impression. They allowed the jury to continue deliberation, knowing a
mistrial ought to have been called. In 1991, David Brewer, a
juror who deliberated Diane's fate in her 1984 trial, came forward to say
that
he and another two juror's had decided to acquit Diane by the close of
the State's presentation.
When
Prosecutor Hugi (falsely) stated that Dr. Jamison had
labeled Diane a 'deviant sociopath', Mr. Brewer changed his mind.
He also claimed he was responsible for silencing the dissenting votes of the
two other (women) jurors,
(App 97). That disinformation was alleged by Mr. Hugi the third day into Jim Jagger's defense and it was never objected to by
Mr. Jagger.
This was a Prosecution that fabricated evidence, purjured witness's, and told lies. Assisted by a presiding Judge who sought refuge in the Prosecutor for some of his decisions. And a Defense Attorney that was a mere extension of the Prosecution. What chance anyone with such a duplicitous trio noir . Diane Downs is being held in prison by what has emerged as a sinister, despicable conspiracy despite exculpating evidence that proves she did not commit the crime. And this conspiracy it seems has extended itself beyond the boundaries of Lane County, even Oregon itself, with impunity.
Sentencing
Trial court initiated the sentencing process August 1984. Part of that order is a clause that indicates the Court's intent to impose restitution at some future date. Per ORS 137. 010 (5) the judgment contains the entire sentence. And according to ORS 137. 106 (1), restitution is part of the sentence. Therefore, the August order was not the final judgment because it did not yet contain the complete sentence. Diane was transported to prison August 29, 1984. The notice of appeal was filed September 19, 1984. In violation of ORS 19. 033, after losing jurisdiction to the Appelate Court, the Court conducted a restitution Hearing, on October 29, 1984. The American judicial system protects its Prosecutors by allowing them absolute immunity. Courts have established this immunity so that a District Attorney can't be sued for bringing a weak case or simply making a mistake. However absolute immunity may not apply 'if ' the Prosecutor acted with malice or intent to harm. Nevertheless, prosecuting a Prosecutor is no easy task. Even though there are well-documented cases of corrupt practices or judicial wrongdoing. At the lower end of the scale you may fair better with lawsuits against the law enforcement agency itself (e.g, Police officers/Investigators). They share the weaker safety-net of 'qualified immunity'. In this they can be held liable if they did something that a reasonably informed officer would have known was illegal or unconstitutional.