There is substantial evidence in the record to suggest that
Edmonds murdered Mr. Konzelman and that he committed
the killing outside of Smith’s presence and without any
advance knowledge on Smith’s part that he would engage in
any violent conduct or that he possessed a dangerous or
deadly weapon. The blood on the getaway truck and Mrs.
Konzelman’s recollection of the killer’s attire, for instance,
point to Edmonds as the killer.2 However, as part of a deal
with the prosecutor, Edmonds named Smith as the murderer
in return for the dismissal of his murder charges. The conditions
of the plea agreement required Edmonds to pass a polygraph
examination showing that all of his allegations were
truthful and to give a complete statement memorializing his
accusation against Smith. In return, the state agreed to recommend
concurrent sentences with a minimum of 43 months on
the two robbery counts to which he pled.3
After learning that he would be prosecuted for capital murder
and that Edmonds was going to testify against him, Smith,
who had continuously asserted his innocence, pled no contest
to robbery and felony murder. In return, he received a life
sentence with a minimum term of 30 years. Although Smith
pled no contest to the lesser charge of felony murder, the trial
judge explained that he was enhancing Smith’s sentence
because he believed that Smith was the one who had committed
the killing, even though the evidence was far from clear
on this point. After the plea, Smith filed a direct appeal, which
the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court
denied without opinion.
snip
In a notarized statement to the district attorney seven years
after the incident and two years after the Oregon Supreme
Court’s denial of review, Edmonds recanted his earlier testimony
against Smith, implicitly acknowledging that he had
murdered Mr. Konzelman. Edmonds explained that although
he “stated in a sworn statement that Roger Smith . . . had in
fact bludgeoned Emmit Konzleman
to death,” he wanted
“for the record retract that statement. Roger Smith did not
kill Emmit Konzleman .” He then confessed to committing
perjury in his statement against Smith and explained that
“the only way for me to set the record straight is to write this
confession now.”
Based on Edmonds’s recantation, Smith again requested
post-conviction relief in state court. Smith’s second petition
asserted that Edmonds’s 1996 recantation was new evidence
that exculpated him and that his due process rights were violated
both when the differences between aggravated murder
and felony murder were not explained to him at the time of
his plea and when the court failed to provide him with an adequate
explanation of the charges against him, given that he
was on drugs and of below-average intelligence. The court,
however, granted summary judgment for the state, concluding
that “post-conviction is not the for(u)m to — won’t allow this
relief here on newly discovered evidence.” Smith appealed
but grew frustrated with his attorney and with the delay
caused by numerous extensions of time. As a result, he filed
a motion for voluntary dismissal, which the court granted.
Smith next turned his attention to the federal courts: In 1997,
Smith asserted four grounds for relief in a petition for federal
habeas corpus: (1) conviction obtained by a guilty plea which
was unlawfully induced and made neither voluntarily nor
intelligently; (2) denial of effective assistance of counsel during
the investigative and trial preparation stages; (3) denial of
effective assistance of counsel during the plea negotiation/
entry stage; (4) denial of effective assistance of counsel during
hearings before the trial court.
more: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B2E526E11618CBA88257210007B1F4A/$file/0435253.pdf"> Smith v. Baldwin (9th Cir. - Oct. 24, 2006) 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
