Thursday, November 30, 2006

The State`s response to relinquishment - Angel Diaz


http://www.angel-diaz.us/legal/stateonrelinquishment.htm

http://www.angel-diaz.us/legal/Filed_11-28-2006_ResponseToMotionRelinquishment.pdf - PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. SC06-2259

ANGEL NIEVES DIAZ,
Appellant,
vs.

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RELINQUISH
JURISDICTION

THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.

Relinquishment has started November 29, 2006 - Angel Diaz


Oral Arguments scheduled for December 7, 2006 - Angel Diaz

http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket?p_caseyear=2006&p_casenumber=2259

11/29/2006
ORDER-OA SCHED


(SEE 11/29/2006 RELINQUISHMENT ORDER)
11/29/2006
ORAL ARGUMENT CALENDAR
12/07/2006

@ 9:00 A.M.

State`s response to motion for relinquishment - Appendix - Angel Diaz

State`s response to motion for relinquishment - Appendix:

http://www.angel-diaz.us/legal/Filed_11-28-2006_ResponseToMotionRelinquishmentAttachments.pdf - PDF

Death Row Convict Could Get New Trial

CONNECTICUT NEWS

Death Row Convict Could Get New Trial
November 30, 2006
Associated Press

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-ctapdiazexecution1130.artnov30,0,409620.story?coll=hc-headlines-local

New trial on tap for death-row inmate?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-stbriefs30_306nov30,0,6375636.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-state

New trial on tap for death-row inmate?

Posted November 30, 2006

TALLAHASSEE -- A trial court will decide if a death-row inmate set for execution next month should get a new trial because a key witness has recanted his testimony, the Florida Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The high court voted 5-2 to grant the request by Angel Diaz to order that a circuit judge in Miami consider the recanted-testimony issue.

The justices also ordered that the ruling must be made by 5 p.m. Sunday. It then can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Diaz is scheduled to die Dec. 13 for the fatal shooting of a Miami topless-club manager in 1979.

Another inmate at the Miami-Dade County Jail, Ralph Gajus, testified at his 1984 trial that Diaz, who spoke only in broken English, used hand signs to imply he was the triggerman.
Compiled from wire reports

State Supreme Court sends Miami topless murder case back to trial court - Angel Diaz

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-1129toplessmurder,0,5098509.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

State Supreme Court sends Miami topless murder case back to trial court

Associated Press
Posted November 29 2006, 3:35 PM EST

TALLAHASSEE

A trial court will decide if a death row inmate set for execution next month should get a new trial because a key witness has recanted his testimony, the Florida Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The high court voted 5-2 to grant the request by Angel Diaz to order that a circuit judge in Miami consider the recanted testimony issue.

The justices also ordered that the ruling must be made by 5 p.m. Sunday. It then can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Diaz is scheduled to die Dec. 13 for the fatal shooting of a Miami topless club manager in 1979.

Another inmate at the Miami-Dade County Jail, Ralph Gajus, testified at his 1984 trial that Diaz, who spoke only in broken English, used hand signs to imply he was the triggerman.

A lawyer for Diaz asked the high court to send the case back to the trial court to consider a recently obtained sworn statement from Gajus saying that he lied on the witness stand.

Gajus said in the statement that he was angry with Diaz for leaving him out of a plan to escape and police promised to help him with his case if he testified.

Gajus later was sentenced to 20 years in prison for second-degree murder.

Justices Charles Wells and Kenneth Bell dissented from the high court's decision without explanation.

The state argued Diaz made the same argument about the recanted testimony in prior appeals so he should be barred from raising it again although the sworn statement is new.

The high court set a Monday deadline for appealing the trial court's ruling.

Diaz also has appealed to the justices on other grounds.

Diaz previously was convicted of another murder in his native Puerto Rico. He also escaped from prisons there and in Connecticut.

Some more comments on the FSC order - Angel Diaz

Some more comments on the FSC order :

Yes, it does.

FSC wants to free itself from being responsible for rejecting his innocence claim alone and lets the judge do the dirty job
When they get the case back in FSC, they will rely on the judge denial - smile

But at least we got the case back to circuit court which gives the lawyers a chance to interviene

Comment on the FSC order on relinquishment - Angel Diaz

Some comments on the FSC order on relinquishment :

Well, not only that.

I read the order on the blog (thanks) and I guess the operative part is this: "The relinquishment of this case should not be construed as an adjudication or comment on the merits ofappellant's post-conviction motion nor an adjudication or comment that an evidentiary hearing is required."

Doesn't that roughly translate into: "feel free to make this disappear."
??

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Urgent Action Update for Angel Nieves Diaz -- ALL APPEALS MUST STILL ARRIVE BY 13 DECEMBER (first update to UA 317/06)

URGENT ACTION APPEAL UPDATE

To read the current newsletter, go to

http://www.amnestyusa.org/urgent/newslett.html

Organize a Global Writeathon this December 10!http://www.amnestyusa.org/writeathon/

29 November 2006

Further information on UA 317/06
(24 November 2006)

Deathpenalty / Legal concernUSA (Florida)

Angel Nieves Diaz (m), aged 55

A key prosecution witness at the 1985 trial of Angel Nieves Diaz has recanted his testimony, which had been a key part of the evidence that convicted Diaz of murder.

On 27 November, lawyers for Angel Diaz filed a new motion in court on the basis of this new evidence.

Angel Diaz remains scheduled for execution in Florida on 13 December.

He was sentenced to death in 1986 for the murder during a robbery of bar manager Joseph Nagy in Miami. Joseph Nagy was the bar manager of the Velvet Swing Lounge. He was shot dead on 29 December 1979, when a group of three men robbed the bar.

There were no eyewitnesses to the shooting.

Angel Diaz and Angel Toro were charged with first-degree murder in 1984, but the trial was delayed until December 1985. By that time, Angel Toro had pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in return for a life sentence.

Angel Diaz's former girlfriend testified that on the night of the robbery, he had told her that Angel Toro had shot a man during the robbery. The testimony of two other witnesses, who had been in the bar at the time of the robbery, indicated that Angel Diaz was not the gunman.

However, a jailhouse informant, Ralph Gajus, testified that when they had been held in the same jail, Angel Diaz had indicated to him that he had shot Joseph Nagy.

Ralph Gajus has now provided a sworn affidavit stating that his testimony at the trial was false; that Angel Diaz never told him that he was the gunman; and that he did not know from his communication with Diaz who had shot Joseph Nagy.

He states that his testimony to the contrary was motivated by anger at Angel Diaz and a desire to gain favor from the state on his own murder charge. Ralph Gajus had testified at the trial that he had not been promised anything in return for his testimony.

However, at his own sentencing a police officer had testified about the assistance Gajus had provided to the state in the Diaz case.

During the jury's deliberations at the trial of Angel Diaz,the jurors requested copies of the testimony of Ralph Gajus, but the judge refused, instructing the jury to rely on its recollection of what he had said.

The jury returned a guilty verdict.

Ralph Gajus's recantation further calls into question the reliability of their verdict.

At the sentencing, it was argued in mitigation against a death sentence that Angel Diaz had only been an accompliceto the crime, but no new evidence of this was presented.

Research in the USA has shown that residual doubt about guilt is a highly mitigating factor in the minds of capital jurors.

Although the jury recommended a death sentence for Angel Diaz, they did so only by eight votes to four, indicating possible residual doubt in the minds of the jurors even with the testimony of Ralph Gajus.

Without it, it is possible that more of the jurors would have voted against a death sentence.

In post-conviction proceedings, evidence not raised at the trial has been raised about Angel Diaz's childhood of abuse and mental problems, and his addiction to drugs from the age of 16.

It has also been claimed that the prosecution failed to disclose evidence that it was Angel Toro who shot Joseph Nagy.

In a memorandum dated 6 February 1984, the prosecutor wrote: ''At some point, all three subjects pulled out guns and announced a robbery. Shots were fired.

Defendant Toro apparently grabbed Gina Fredericks around the neck and took her back to the area of the office where the safe was located. Apparently, victim Nagy came out of the office at that time.

Defendant Toro shot Nagy once in the chest causing his death''.

Testimony given by people who are themselves in custody or facing criminal prosecution has been shown to be frequently unreliable.

Research at Northwestern University in Illinois has revealed that the use of such informants was among the three most prevalent factors in wrongful capital convictionsin the United States.

A review of 111 such cases from 1973 to 2004 in the USA found the use of false testimony in 46 per cent of the cases.

The Commission on CapitalPunishment, set up by the Governor of Illinois after he imposed a moratorium on executions in 2000, examined the question of such testimony.

The Commission's April 2002 report concluded that, even with stringent safeguards on the use of such evidence, ''the potential for testimony of questionable reliability remains high, and imposing the death penalty in such cases appears ill-advised.

''The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice has recently issued its recommendation on the use of informant testimony.

The Commission, established by the California State Senate to examine the causes of wrongful convictions, and to make recommendations to ensure the fair and reliable administration of criminal justice in California, has recommended that the legislature adopt a lawbarring the use of in-custody informant testimony incriminal trials without independent corroborating evidence.

A recent study conducted under the auspices of the American Bar Association's Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project identified serious problems in Florida's capital justice system, including the high number of people released from death row on the grounds of innocence (22 since 1973 –more than Illinois, where a moratorium resulted), the continued existence of racial and geographic disparities, the fact that unanimity is not required in jury sentencing decisions, and the failure to give sufficient weight to the mitigating effects of serious mental disability.

FURTHER RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Please continue to send appeals based on the original UA and this new information, to arrive as quickly as possible:- expressing sympathy for the family of Joseph Nagy, who was killed in 1979, and explaining that you are not seeking to downplay the seriousness of this crime or the suffering caused;- opposing the execution of Angel Nieves Diaz, noting evidence calling into question his competency to stand trial and represent himself;- noting the disparity in sentencing in this case, with one defendant receiving a life sentence and another death, despite conflicting evidence about who was the gunman;- noting that Ralph Gajus, a key prosecution witness at the trial, has now recanted his testimony against Angel Diaz, calling into further doubt the reliability of the jury's verdict;- noting that four of the jurors did not vote for the deathpenalty, indicating a possible residual doubt in their mind sabout the defendant's guilt, and suggesting that without the testimony of Ralph Gajus more of the jurors might have voted against a death sentence;- noting that recent research has found serious problems with Florida's capital justice system, including geographic and racial disparities, and the lack of a requirement for unanimity in jury sentencing decisions;- calling on the Governor to intervene to stop this execution.

APPEALS TO:

Governor Jeb Bush
The Capitol400 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee FL 32399
Email: jeb.bush@myflorida.com
Fax: 1 850 487 0801

Salutation: Dear Governor

PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY.

Tip of the Month:

If you have questions, please call, write, fax, or email the AIUSA Urgent Action office.

Also, please note our new address in DC (below), and update your records if you have our old Colorado address on file.

** POSTAGE RATES **Within the United States:
$0.24 - Postcards $0.39
Letters and Cards (up to 1 oz.)
To Mexico and Canada: $0.55
Postcards $0.63
Airmail Letters and Cards (up to 1 oz.) $0.75 - Aerogrammes

To all other destination countries: $0.75 -
Postcards $0.84 -
Airmail Letters and Cards (up to 1 oz.) $0.75 - Aerogrammes

Amnesty International is a worldwide grassroots movement that promotes and defends human rights.

This Urgent Action may be reposted if kept intact, including contact information and stop action date (if applicable).

Thank you for your help with this appeal.

Urgent Action Network Amnesty International USA
600 Pennsylvania Ave SE 5th fl
Washington DC 20003
Email: uan@aiusa.org

http://www.amnestyusa.org/urgent/

Phone: 202.544.0200
Fax: 202.675.8566
END OF URGENT ACTION APPEAL UPDATE

Motion relinquishment - Angel Diaz


http://www.angel-diaz.us/legal/Motionforrel.htm

http://www.angel-diaz.us/legal/Filed_11-27-2006_MotionRelinquishment.pdf - PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
NO. SC68493
EMERGENCY CAPITAL CASE, DEATH WARRANT SIGNED;
EXECUTION SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 13, 2006 AT 6:00 P.M.
ANGEL NIEVES DIAZ,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
__________________________/
MOTION FOR RELINQUISHMENT AND/OR FOR CLARIFICATION OF HOW
TO PROCEED
COMES NOW THE APPELLANT, ANGEL NIEVES DIAZ, by and
through his undersigned counsel, and herein moves for a relinquishment to the lower
court in light of the circumstances alleged below and/or for clarification of how to
proceed.
1. On November 19, 2006, counsel's investigator interviewed Ralph Gajus, the
jailhouse snitch that testified against Mr. Diaz, and Mr. Gajus has now provided a sworn
affidavit that his testimony at Mr. Diaz’s trial was untrue.
AFFIDAVIT OF RALPH GAJUS
I, Ralph Gajus, being first duly sworn, depose and say that:
1. In 1984 I was inmate in the Dade County Jail awaiting trial on a
first degree murder charge. I was in the jail with Angel Diaz for 6
months. We were on the 6th floor on a wing with 6 cells. Angel Diaz
was in the cell directly across from me and we would speak to each
other across the hall from each other..2. Angel Diaz spoke English with a very thick accent and used
simple words. I sometimes had a hard time understanding Angel
Diaz. I did not speak any Spanish. We would communicate by using
our hands and with Angel Diaz's broken English. We also would
write notes to each other.
3. We would always talk about each other cases. I told him about
mine and he always talked about his. Angel Diaz told me about a
robbery at a bar with two other guys and amid the commotion a man
was shot. Angel Diaz acted out the shooting using his hands. I do not
know what really happened or whether Angel Diaz did the shooting.
Angel Diaz never told me that he shot anyone.
4. During this time, Angel Diaz and I also talked about planning an
escape. We passed notes among the inmates to plan the escape.
Before the escape took place I read a note from Angel Diaz to
another inmate and I believed I was going to be in danger during the
escape. I asked the jail guards to move me and told the jail about the
escape plan. I was angry with Angel Diaz because I found out they
were not going to take me and I believed I was in danger.
5. After I was moved and told the jail about the escape Detective
Smith and another officer came to talk to me about Angel Diaz.
When the detective spoke to me about Angel Diaz's case I asked
them to help me out with my case. They told me they would make a
statement for me to the Judge.
6. I testified at Angel Diaz's trial that Angel Diaz acted out the
shooting and that he shot the man. I testified that Angel Diaz was the
shooter. At that time I testified I was unsure who really was the
shooter because Angel Diaz never told me and when he acted out the
shooting it was very unclear. I testified that I believed that Angel
Diaz was the shooter because I was angry about the escape plan and
I believed that the police were going to help me with my case.
7. I plead guilty to second degree murder in August or September
1985 and was sentenced in 1986. I recall that Detective Smith
testified at
my sentencing that I helped with the escape and that I helped in their
case against Angel Diaz. I was sentenced to 20 years with a three
year mandatory.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT./s/ Ralph Gajus
2. Based on this affidavit, counsel began investigating whether Mr.
Diaz had a viable claim based on newly discovered evidence. Fla. R. Crim. P.
3.851 (e)(2) requires:
A motion filed under this rule is successive if a state court has
previously ruled on a ostconviction motion challenging the same judgment
and sentence. A successive motion shall not exceed 25 pages, exclusive of
attachments, and shall include:
(A) all of the pleading requirements of an initial motion under
subdivision (e)(1);
(B) the disposition of all previous claims raised in postconviction
proceedings and the reason or reasons theclaim or claims raised in the
present motion were not raised in the former motion or motions;
(C) if based upon newly discovered evidence, Brady v. Maryland, 373
U.S. 83 (1963), or Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), the
following:
(i) the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all
witnesses supporting the claim;
(ii) a statement that the witness will be available, should an
evidentiary hearing be scheduled, to testify under oath to the facts
alleged in the motion or affidavit;
(iii) if evidentiary support is in the form of documents, copies
of all documents shall be attached, including any affidavits
obtained; and
(iv) as to any witness or document listed in the motion or
attachment to the motion, a statement of the reason why the
witness or document was not previously available.
Furthermore, in order to constitute "newly discovered evidence," Mr. Diaz bears the
burden of proving the evidence was not discoverable through due diligence and that, if
discovered and introduced at trial, would have "probably produced an acquittal."
Swafford v. State, 679 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1996)..3. To meet the first threshold of diligence and the pleading requirements of
Rule 3.851, it was necessary for counsel to find attorneys who worked on Mr. Diaz’s case
almost 20 years ago. Counsel was unable to obtain affidavits from the necessary
witnesses to diligence until November 27, 2006.
4. In the interim, on November 21, 2006 the lower court denied all
pending motions and Mr. Diaz diligently filed his appeal to this Court on
November 21, 2006.
5. Mr. Diaz is seeking clarification at this time in light of the unique
circumstances and time constraints. Mr. Diaz contends that this affidavit requires an
evidentiary hearing. However, the lower court has lost jurisdiction.
6. At this point, Mr. Diaz is asking for a relinquishment to amend his Rule
3.851 motion based on the newly discovered evidence. A copy of the amendment for
which Mr. Diaz seeks relinquishment is attached hereto. In the alternative, Mr. Diaz
seeks clarification on how to proceed. This information is new, and Mr. Diaz's brief is
due by 3:00 pm on November 30, 2006. It is not appropriate to raise new issues for the
first time on appeal; however, these are unique circumstances and time constraints are
pressing. If the Court wishes Mr. Diaz to brief these issues, then he will do so. If the
Court wishes to relinquish jurisdiction so that Mr. Diaz can amend his motion or file a
successive motion, then he will do so. See State v. Meneses, 392 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1981).
At this point, the lower court has no jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE Mr. Diaz requests (1) a relinquishment to the lower court to
permit Mr. Diaz to amend his 3.850 motion with this newly discovered and disclosed.information; (2) should the Court decline to relinquish, then Mr. Mills seeks clarification
on whether to include this information in his brief or how to proceed at this point.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished by US
Mail to Hon. Amy Steele Donner, 175 N.W. 1 st Ave., Ste. 2314, Miami, FL 33128,
Sandra Jaggard, Assistant Attorney General, 444 Brickell Ave., Suite 650 Miami, Florida
33131, Penny Brill, Assistant State Attorney, 1350 N.W. 12 Avenue, Miami, Florida
33125 this ___ day of ____________ 2006.
___________________________
SUZANNE MYERS KEFFER
Assistant CCRC
Florida Bar No. 0150177
BARBARA L. COSTA
Staff Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0014244
Capital Collateral Regional
Counsel - South
101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 713-1284
Counsel for Defendant

Florida Supreme Court grants to relinquish jurisdiction - Angel Diaz

http://www.angel-diaz.us/legal/FSCorderonrel.htm

http://www.angel-diaz.us/legal/Filed_11-29-2006_OrderRelinquishment.pdf - PDF

Supreme Court of Florida

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2006

CASE NO.: SC06-2259
Lower Tribunal No.: 83-18931-B

ANGEL NIEVES DIAZ vs. STATE OF FLORIDA
___________________________________________________________________
Appellant(s) Appellee(s)
Appellant's motion to relinquish jurisdiction is granted and the jurisdiction of the
above cause is temporarily relinquished to the trial court for a period of time ending at
5:00 p.m., Sunday, December 3, 2006, for the purpose of allowing the trial court to
rule on appellant's Motion to Vacate Judgments of Conviction and Sentence Pursuant
to Rule 3.851, which was filed in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in
and for Dade County, Florida, on November 27, 2006.

The relinquishment of this
case should not be construed as an adjudication or comment on the merits of
appellant's post-conviction motion nor an adjudication or comment that an evidentiary
hearing is required.

We direct that all proceedings regarding this matter be expedited.

All matters
pending in the trial court shall be acted on and orders disposing of those matters
entered by 5:00 p.m., Sunday, December 3, 2006.

A Notice of Appeal, if any, shall
be filed by 9:00 a.m., Monday, December 4, 2006.

The record on appeal shall be
filed by 12:00 noon, Monday, December 4, 2006.

The parties shall file simultaneous
briefs, if any, by 3:00 p.m., Monday, December 4, 2006.

The above case, and any appeal filed in conjunction with the relinquishment
proceeding, are hereby scheduled for oral argument at 9:00 a.m., Thursday,
December 7, 2006.

A maximum of twenty minutes to the side is allowed, but

CASE NO. SC06-2259
PAGE 2

counsel is expected to use only so much of that time as is necessary.

NO
CONTINUANCES WILL BE GRANTED EXCEPT UPON A SHOWING OF
EXTREME HARDSHIP.

LEWIS, C.J., and ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE and CANTERO, JJ., concur.
WELLS and BELL, JJ., dissent.
A True Copy
Test:
tc
Served:
PENNY H. BRILL
BARBARA L. COSTA
SUZANNE MYERS KEFFER
SANDRA S. JAGGARD
HON. AMY STEELE DONNER, JUDGE
HON. HARVEY RUVIN, CLERK

State`s response to motion for relinquish - DOCKET SC06-2259 - Angel Diaz

http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket?p_caseyear=2006&p_casenumber=2259

SC06-2259 DOCKET


11/28/2006
RESPONSE

AE State Of Florida STATE BY: AE Sandra S. Jaggard 12068
TO MOTION TO RELINQUISH (WITH ATTACHMENT) (E-MAIL)

Motion to relinquish DOCKET SC06-2259 - Angel Diaz

http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket?p_caseyear=2006&p_casenumber=2259

SC06-2259 DOCKET

11/27/2006
MOTION-RELINQUISH

AA Angel N. Diaz 101061 BY: AA Suzanne Myers Keffer 150177
(FAX) (11/28/2006: ORIGINAL W/LARGE ATTACHMENT FILED)


CCRC South has found new evidences

The snitch recants his testimony

The snitch testimony was what convicted Angel

CCRC South presents the new information too late - after the circuit court judge has ruled

The case is already gone to FSC

What now?

CCRC South asks FSC to return the case back to 11 judicial court in Miami for an evidentiary hearing on the snitch new affidavit

Do they reach to investigate this?

Or does FSC rush to execution without listening?

FSC scheduling - Angel Diaz

http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket?p_caseyear=2006&p_casenumber=2259

11/22/2006
RECORD/TRANSCRIPT DUE
11/29/2006
Hon. Harvey Ruvin, Clerk DADE-CR BY: Hon. Harvey Ruvin, Clerk DADE-CR
BY 5:00 P.M.
11/22/2006
INITIAL BRIEF-MERITS DUE
11/30/2006
AA Angel N. Diaz 101061 BY: AA Suzanne Myers Keffer 150177
BY 3:00 P.M.
11/22/2006
ANSWER BRIEF-MERITS DUE
11/30/2006
AE State Of Florida STATE BY: AE Sandra S. Jaggard 12068
BY 3:00 P.M.
11/22/2006
DESIGNATION-COURT REPORTER (COPY)


AA Angel N. Diaz 101061 BY: AA Suzanne Myers Keffer 150177 (E-MAIL)
11/22/2006
MISC. DOCKET ENTRY


AA Angel N. Diaz 101061 BY: AA Suzanne Myers Keffer 150177 - DIRECTIONS TO THE CLERK (E-MAIL)

Florida Supreme Court Docket SC06-2259 - Angel Diaz

http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket?p_caseyear=2006&p_casenumber=2259

Florida Supreme Court Docket
Case Docket
Case Number: SC06-2259 - Active

ANGEL NIEVES DIAZ vs. STATE OF FLORIDA

11/22/2006
NOTICE-APPEAL (3.850 SUMMARY DENIAL)

AA Angel N. Diaz 101061 BY: AA Suzanne Myers Keffer 150177
(FAX)
11/22/2006
ORDER-DEP WARRANT SCHEDULE


The Governor has signed a death warrant for the execution of Angel Diaz. The execution is scheduled to take place at 6:00 p.m., December 13, 2006.
We direct that all further proceedings in this case be expedited.
Matters pending in the trial court shall be acted on and orders disposing of those matters entered by November 22, 2006.

A Notice of Appeal, if any, shall be filed by November 27, 2006.

The record on appeal shall be filed by 5:00 p.m., November 29, 2006.

The parties shall file simultaneous briefs, if any, by 3:00 p.m., November 30, 2006.

We hereby reserve December 4, 2006, for oral argument, if necessary, to hear any proceedings that may come before this Court.
(ISSUED 11/15/2006 IN SC68493 - TO VIEW ORDER SEE SC68493)

A jailhouse snitch's recanted testimony is nothing new

A jailhouse snitch's recanted testimony is nothing new, so it should not be included in an appeal by a death-row inmate set for execution next month, the state argued Tuesday in papers filed with the Florida Supreme Court.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-execute2906nov29,0,1839834.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-state



Looks like a snitch testimony is NEW and WORTHY when prosecution wants to get an easy conviction, but NOT NEW when the snitch tells the court he lied ..... oh, Florida ....

Florida Presses For Execution

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-ctdiaz1129.artnov29,0,1745425.story?coll=hc-headlines-local

CONNECTICUT NEWS

Florida Presses For Execution Convicted Murderer Known In Conn. For Hartford Jail Break 25 Years Ago

November 29, 2006
Staff and Wire Reports

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Twenty-five years ago, Angel Diaz was a convicted murderer who helped overwhelm a pair of prison guards at a Hartford correctional facility and then used a string of bed sheets to get over the prison wall and escape into the night.

On Tuesday, state prosecutors in Florida argued that Diaz, now 54, should be executed as scheduled on Dec. 13 for fatally shooting the manager of a topless nightclub outside Miami in a robbery three years before the Hartford escape.

Diaz's lawyer filed an appeal Monday, claiming the execution should be delayed based on new evidence in the case.

By the time he arrived in Connecticut in the early 1980s, Diaz was already wanted not only in connection with the Miami murder, but another one in July 1978 in his native Puerto Rico for which he was convicted and sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison.

But Diaz somehow managed to escape prison custody and fled the island within a matter of months, arriving in Florida in time to carry out the Miami murder, according to court records.In July 1981, federal agents captured Diaz in Middletown and booked him on federal weapons charges stemming from incidents in Florida and Pennsylvania, records show.

As he was waiting to be moved to a federal penitentiary in Harrisburg, Pa., Diaz and three other inmates at the Hartford Correctional Center staged a violent escape that kept them in the local headlines for the next several weeks.According to police reports and court records, Diaz held one prison guard at knifepoint while the three other inmates overwhelmed a second guard, locking them both in a prison cell. The inmates then used a floor buffer to bash open a window high on one of the prison walls and climbed out of the building.The four then apparently used a string of bed sheets to get over the perimeter wall of the facility. State police at the time said the four apparently stole a pair of cars that had been parked nearby.

Despite an intense manhunt, Diaz remained at large for four days before police found him in a hotel room in Meriden.

He was returned to custody and eventually extradited to Florida to stand trial for the murder of Joseph Nagy, the manager of the Velvet Swing club who was killed by Diaz and an accomplice in 1978.
Diaz was convicted of first-degree murder in 1984 after defending himself at trial with the help of a standby lawyer.

Since then, Diaz has been trying to appeal his death sentence by arguing, among other points, that a key witness against him eventually recanted his testimony.

But in papers filed Tuesday with the Florida Supreme Court, prosecutors said Diaz's argument is not grounds for staying the execution.

The only thing new this time is a sworn statement by Ralph Gajus, an inmate who says he falsely claimed Diaz had implied being the triggerman, said Assistant Attorney General Sandra Jaggard.Gajus, a jailhouse snitch who shared a cell with Diaz at the Miami-Dade County Jail, testified that Diaz had indicated with hand gestures that he shot the victim in the chest.

In the sworn statement, Gajus said he lied on the witness stand in 1984 because he was angry with Diaz for failing to include him in a plan to escape, and that police had promised to help him with his case. Gajus later was sentenced to 20 years in prison for second-degree murder.

Jaggard also noted that the Supreme Court in an earlier appeal ruled death was an appropriate punishment even if Diaz did not fire the fatal shot.

Under Florida's felony murder law, a person who commits a crime that results in a death is just as culpable as the one who caused the death.Diaz's lawyer, Suzanne Myers Keffer, also contends he should not be executed because he is mentally ill, and because Florida's lethal injection procedure constitutes unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. Three other death row inmates who were executed this year also made the latter argument.

State: Recanted testimony not new in Diaz murder case

http://www.jacksonville.com/apnews/stories/112806/D8LM8P500.shtml


Tuesday, November 28, 2006 Story last updated at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 28, 2006

State: Recanted testimony not new in Diaz murder case

By BILL KACZOR Associated Press Writer


TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - A jailhouse snitch's recanted testimony is nothing new, so it should not be included in an appeal by a death row inmate set for execution next month, the state argued Tuesday in papers filed with the Florida Supreme Court.

Angel Diaz is scheduled to die Dec. 13 for killing the manager of a Miami topless club. He had asked the justices to consider the recanted testimony in his pending appeal or send the case back to a trial court for a ruling on whether he should get a new trial
.
Diaz has been raising the recanted testimony claim for the past 17 years, wrote Assistant Attorney General Sandra Jaggard.

The only thing new this time is a sworn statement by Ralph Gajus, an inmate who says he falsely claimed Diaz had implied being the triggerman, she said.

Gajus had testified Diaz spoke with a heavy Spanish accent, but that while both were inmates at the Miami-Dade County Jail, he had indicated through hand gestures he shot the victim in the chest.

Joseph Nagy was shot on Dec. 22, 1978, when Diaz and two accomplices robbed The Velvet Swing. One of the accomplices, Angel Toro, entered a plea agreement and was sentenced to life in prison after other evidence was presented implicating Toro as the triggerman.

In the sworn statement, Gajus said he lied on the witness stand in 1984 because he was angry with Diaz for failing to include him in a plan to escape and that police had promised to help him with his case.

Gajus later was sentenced to 20 years in prison for second-degree murder.

Jaggard also noted the Supreme Court in an earlier appeal ruled death was an appropriate punishment even if Diaz did not fire the fatal shot. Under Florida's felony murder law, a person who commits a crime that results in a death is just as culpable as the one who caused the death.

Diaz's lawyer, Suzanne Myers Keffer, also contends he should not be executed because he is mentally ill and Florida's lethal injection procedure constitutes unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.

Three other death row inmates who were executed this year also made the latter argument without success.

Diaz has a long criminal history including a second-degree murder conviction and escape in his native Puerto Rico and another escape in Connecticut.

Convicted Miami killer pleads his case to avoid lethal injection

Convicted Miami killer pleads his case to avoid lethal injection

The Associated Press

Posted November 27 2006, 4:49 PM EST

TALLAHASSEE -- A death row inmate who fatally shot a Miami topless club manager nearly 27 years ago asked the Florida Supreme Court on Monday to block his execution next month.

A lawyer for Angel Diaz filed a brief notice of appeal from a trial court's summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief and requests for public records.

Diaz challenged Florida's lethal injection procedure on grounds it is unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, an argument unsuccessfully made by three other inmates who have been executed this year.

His lawyer, Suzanne Myers Keffer, contends his appeal is based on new evidence the Supreme Court did not consider in those cases. The justices have given Diaz and the state until Thursday afternoon to file written arguments.

Diaz is set for execution Dec. 13.

He was convicted of first-degree murder after defending himself at trial with help from a standby lawyer. The victim, Joseph Nagy, was shot with a silencer-equipped gun when Diaz and two accomplices robbed The Velvet Swing on Dec. 22, 1979.Diaz escaped from prison in his native Puerto Rico where he had been convicted of another murder. He also escaped from a Connecticut prison.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-1126exec,0,4394663.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

Read all 30 comments »

Condemned inmate offers new evidence

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/16114507.htm

November 28, 2006

Florida

Condemned inmate offers new evidence

A convicted killer set to die Dec. 13 has asked the state Supreme Court for a stay of execution and a new appeal.
Associated Press
TALLAHASSEE --

A Death Row inmate convicted of fatally shooting a Miamitopless club manager nearly 27 years ago asked the Florida Supreme Court on Monday to block his execution next month.

A lawyer for Angel Diaz, who is scheduled to die Dec. 13, also asked the justices to consider new information in the case, a sworn statement from another inmate who recanted his trial testimony that Diaz had confessed to him.

Ralph Gajus said in the statement that he lied on the witness stand in 1984 because he was angry with Diaz for not including him in an escape plan and believed police would help him get a reduced sentence in exchange for his testimony.

Gajus, later sentenced to 20 years for second-degree murder, said he did not understand Spanish so they communicated in hand signs and the broken English that Diaz spoke when both were inmates at the Miami-Dade County Jail.

''Angel Diaz acted out the shooting using his hands,'' Gajus said in thestatement. `

`I do not know what really happened or whether Angel Diaz did the shooting.

Angel Diaz never told me he shot anyone.

''Diaz's lawyer, Suzanne Myers Keffer, wrote that she was unable to obtain sworn statements from all the necessary witnesses until Monday, six days after a trial judge had denied all pending motions in the case.

She asked the high court to send the case back to Circuit Court for a hearing on whether to grant a new trial because of the recanted testimony or else allow her to argue that issue on appeal.

''It is not appropriate to raise new issues for the first time on appeal; however, these are unique circumstances and time constraints are pressing,''she wrote.

The trial court had rejected Diaz's challenge to Florida's lethal injection procedure on grounds it is unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.Three other inmates executed this year made the same argument without success.

Keffer contends the appeal also includes new evidence on that issue the Supreme Court did not consider in the other cases.

The justices have given Diaz and the state until Thursday afternoon to file written arguments.

Diaz was convicted of first-degree murder after defending himself at trial with help from a standby lawyer.

The victim, Joseph Nagy, was shot with asilencer-equipped gun when Diaz and two accomplices robbed The Velvet Swingon Dec. 22, 1979.

Diaz escaped from prison in his native Puerto Rico, where he was serving a sentence for second-degree murder, about three months before the Florida killing.
Diaz also escaped from the Hartford Correctional Center inConnecticut in 1981. He held one guard at knifepoint while another wasbeaten as he and three other inmates escaped, according to court records.
---Source : Associated Press

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/16114507.htm

Do Not Execute Angel Nieves Diaz

Do Not Execute Angel Nieves Diaz
December 13, 2006, FL

Angel Nieves Diaz is scheduled to be executed Dec. 13, 2006, for the 1979 murder of a Miami bar manager. Diaz was convicted of robbery, first-degree murder, kidnapping, and several other charges.

Two other Spanish-speaking men were implicated in this case, with one being sentenced to life and one was never charged.

No one witnessed the shooting, as the majority of patrons had been locked in a restroom. A dancer hid under the bar, but she did not see the triggerman.

The only evidence linking Diaz to the scene of the crime is a matchbook with his fingerprints on it.

Diaz maintains that he was with his girlfriend in Connecticut that night and did not learn of the shootings until three days after they had taken place.

This girlfriend ultimately testified against Diaz, but only after the police coerced her through the threat of drug charges. At a post-conviction hearing, she admitted that she had lied.

Diaz was offered a plea bargain, but chose to proceed with the trial, claiming innocence.

His cellmate and alleged co-conspirator Angel Toro also testified against Diaz. Toro received a life sentence for his testimony.

Throughout the trial and sentencing phase, Diaz faced several communication barriers since he only spoke Spanish at the time.

He chose to represent himself after he could not contact anyone at his first lawyer’s office and his second lawyer only came to interview him two days before the trial, showing up without an interpreter.

During the trial, Diaz used his broken English to represent himself with standby counsel. He had only two statements an attorney had given him to use during the trial, and the judge did not allow any witnesses on his behalf.

During the trial, 14 armed guards escorted Diaz and lined the walls of the room. Also, a Plexiglas shield also separated Diaz from the jury, giving the jury the impression that Diaz was a dangerous person.

Due to coerced testimony, the fact that Diaz was allowed to represent himself despite a lack of knowledge on the law and a language barrier, as well as the influencing of the jury through extensive security measures, Angel Nieves Diaz deserves a stay of execution.

Please write to Gov. Jeb Bush on behalf of Angel Nieves Diaz!

Please go to the following link and pass this on.....

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=6019

Who shot the victim? - Angel Diaz case

It's a crap case...

How exactly -- aside from snitch testimony -- do they know that it was Diaz and not Toro who shot the victim??

Hector Torres

The second absence that Diaz contends should have been raised on appeal is

his absence from a discussion regarding Hector Torres, a criminal who stated that

he had information regarding the jailhouse informant that identified Diaz as the

actual shooter in the murder of Joseph Nagy. The record shows that Diaz was

absent from the courtroom only because he was not yet ready to return from the

recess that Diaz had requested. During Diaz's absence, the trial court discussed

with the prosecution and Diaz's standby counsel the appointment of new counsel

to represent Torres regarding his request for a plea deal with the State. The

prosecution stated that Torres likely possessed only inculpatory information and, if

so, there would be no plea agreement with Torres. The prosecution also stated

that, if Torres had any exculpatory information that came to light during his

request for a plea agreement, Torres would be made available for Diaz to examine

all exculpatory information. During this portion of the trial, Diaz's presence would

have been useless because, at that time, the trial court did not suspect that Torres

held any information that would have been beneficial to Diaz. "[T]he benefit" of

Diaz's presence would have been "but a shadow." Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291

U.S. 97, 106-07, 54 S. Ct. 330, 332 (1934), overruled on other grounds Malloy v.

Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 6, 84 S. Ct. 1489, 1492 (1964).

When the trial court later questioned Torres's court-appointed attorney

regarding the information that Torres possessed, Diaz's presence would not have

provided any value. The attorney assigned to Torres told the court that "based on

[his] interview with Mr. Torres, he has nothing that would put the State under any

obligation to disclose any information under ... Brady v. Maryland. Nor does he

have any information that would in any way be considered exculpatory for the

defense." The trial judge confirmed that she would not allow a plea by Torres in

exchange for inculpatory information regarding the murder of Joseph Nagy. When

Diaz's standby counsel raised the issue whether Torres had "information about any

witness, specifically, Ralph Gajus[, the jailhouse informant who testified that Diaz

was the shooter,] or others that would tend to be favorable to" Diaz, the attorney

representing Torres testified that there was "absolutely no exculpatory evidence."

The only individuals with whom Torres sought to converse were prosecutors, and

the trial court flatly refused Torres's overtures for a plea agreement in return for

information that would tie Diaz to the murder of Joseph Nagy. It is clear,

therefore, that Diaz's appellate counsel was not ineffective for failure to raise the

issue of Diaz's absence at the proceedings regarding Hector Torres.

The next absence that Diaz contends his appellate counsel should have

pursued was Diaz's absence during a conversation between the trial court and the

prosecution regarding the schedule for closing arguments. During that colloquy,

the prosecution requested an hour for its closing argument and stated that Diaz

should receive at least the same amount of time as the prosecution, but the court

reserved its decision and later revisited this issue. When the trial court raised the

issue with both the prosecution and Diaz, the prosecution then requested 45

minutes for closing and Diaz asked for only one or two minutes. Any flaw in

Diaz's earlier absence was cured by that later colloquy. Diaz's appellate counsel

was not ineffective for failure to raise this issue.

Monday, November 27, 2006

Contra la pena de muerte - Angel Diaz

http://saliodetuausencia.blogia.com/2006/112701-contra-la-pena-de-muerte..php

Contra la pena de muerte.

PÚBLICO Índice AI: AMR 51/177/2006 24 de noviembre de 2006AU 317/06 Pena de muerte / preocupación jurídicaEE. UU. (Florida) Ángel Nieves Díaz, de 55 años de edadEstá previsto que Ángel Nieves Díaz sea ejecutado en Florida el 13 de diciembrede 2006. Fue condenado a muerte en 1986 por el asesinato, durante un robo, deJoseph Nagy, encargado de un bar, en Miami en 1979. Joseph Nagy era el encargado del bar Velvet Swing Lounge. Murió de un disparoel 29 de diciembre de 1979 cuando tres hombres robaron en el establecimiento. Nohubo testigos presenciales de los disparos. Ángel Díaz y Ángel Toro fueronacusados de asesinato en primer grado en 1984, pero el juicio se retrasó hastadiciembre de 1985. Para entonces, Ángel Toro se había declarado culpable deasesinato en segundo grado a cambio de una pena de cadena perpetua.Ángel Díaz, originario de Puerto Rico, estuvo representado por un abogado hastapoco después de la selección del jurado. Justo antes de la apertura de sujuicio, y contra el consejo de su abogado, decidió encargarse él mismo de sudefensa. El abogado informó al juez de que Ángel Díaz había "mostrado tendenciasbastante extrañas" en los días anteriores, con conductas como no responder a laspreguntas del abogado o dar respuestas irracionales. También dijo que, en las 24horas anteriores, Ángel Díaz había rechazado la estrategia de defensa que habíanelaborado en los meses anteriores.El juez interrogó al acusado sobre su decisión. Mediante un intérprete (suinglés era limitado), Ángel Díaz dijo que nunca había leído un libro y no tenía"ni idea" de cómo se llevaba a cabo un juicio en Florida o "qué cosas puedoalegar". El juez le dijo: "Puesto que no puede hablar inglés ante este tribunal,no conoce la ley, y no [concluyó sus estudios escolares], este Tribunal opinaque a usted le resultaría imposible actuar como abogado en su propia defensa".Ángel Díaz mantuvo su decisión y el juez resolvió que la había tomado de maneralibre e inteligente.El juez hizo que dos psiquiatras evaluaran a Díaz tras los procedimientos deese día para determinar si estaba capacitado para ser juzgado. Mientras tanto,el juicio dio comienzo: Díaz hizo su alegato de apertura y la fiscalía presentóa cinco testigos antes de que se dictara un receso para el resto del día. Losdos psiquiatras evaluaron a Ángel Díaz esa tarde. A la mañana siguiente secelebró una vista para determinar la capacidad del acusado, sin que estuvieranpresentes ni Ángel Díaz ni el abogado que le ayudaba. Las actas de esa vista secomponen de unas pocas frases. Uno de los psiquiatras dijo al juez: "Ángel Díazes apto. Pero me dijo que le gustaría tener alguna ayuda legal técnica para sudefensa". El juez dijo a continuación que tenía un informe del otro médico (queno estaba presente) que decía que Ángel Díaz estaba "muy capacitado". Después deeso se permitió que el juicio continuara.Las evaluaciones realizadas tras la condena por dos expertos en salud mentalconcluyeron que Ángel Díaz sufre ciertos trastornos mentales que contribuyeron asu decisión de representarse a sí mismo y minaron su capacidad para hacerlo deforma competente. El abogado que lo representó hasta la apertura del juiciofirmó una declaración jurada en la que decía: "No creo que Ángel Díaz estuvieracapacitado para representarse a sí mismo. A consecuencia de ello, hizo preguntasque no debería haber hecho y no pudo protestar a ciertas preguntas y pruebasdespués de que yo le aconsejé, a través del intérprete, que lo hiciera. No creoque comprendiera adecuadamente el sistema judicial y la forma de realizarse eljuicio, a causa de las diferencias culturales y las barreras lingüísticas, entreotras razones".Durante el juicio, Ángel Díaz fue obligado a permanecer con grilletes. Durantela selección del jurado, su abogado había protestado contra esta medida, pero eljuez respondió que Díaz podía cubrirse los grilletes con los pantalones o elabogado podía colocar su maletín delante de las piernas del acusado. Sinembargo, una vez que Ángel Díaz empezó a representarse a sí mismo los grilletesquedaron a la vista del jurado, lo que plantea dudas sobre su efecto perjudicialrespecto a la presunción de inocencia. Además, se ha demostrado que la aparentepeligrosidad de un acusado es un factor sumamente agravante a los ojos de losjurados de casos de pena capital que deciden entre condenas de muerte o decadena perpetua.La ex novia de Ángel Díaz testificó que, la noche del delito, éste le habíadicho que Ángel Toro había disparado contra un hombre durante el robo. Eltestimonio de otras dos personas, que estaban en el bar en el momento del robo,indicaba que Ángel Díaz no había sido el autor de los disparos. Sin embargo, uninformador encarcelado declaró que, mientras estaban en la misma celda, ÁngelDíaz había indicado que había disparado a Joseph Nagy. El testimonio de estetipo de informadores es notoriamente poco fiable. La Comisión sobre PenaCapital, establecida por el gobernador de Illinois tras dictar una suspensión delas ejecuciones en el año 2000, examinó la cuestión de estos testimonios y, ensu informe de abril de 2002, concluyó que, incluso con las salvaguardias másestrictas, "la posibilidad de que se presenten testimonios de fiabilidad dudosasigue siendo elevada, y no es aconsejable imponer una condena de muerte en talescasos".El jurado se retiró a deliberar sobre la cuestión de la culpabilidad. Durantesus deliberaciones, pidieron copias del testimonio de la ex novia y elinformador encarcelado, pero el juez se negó a proporcionárselas, y dioinstrucciones de que el jurado se basara en su recuerdo de lo que los testigoshabían dicho. El jurado emitió un veredicto de culpabilidad.La vista de determinación de la pena se celebró dos semanas después. Al inicio,pese a pedir representarse a sí mismo, Ángel Díaz admitió ante el tribunal queno estaba capacitado para hacerlo adecuadamente. El tribunal entonces nombrócomo representante durante esa fase del proceso al abogado que ayudaba alacusado. Ángel Díaz se negó a permitir que el abogado interrogara a los primerostestigos de la acusación. El abogado alegó como atenuante que Díaz sólo habíasido cómplice del delito, pero no presentó ningún nuevo testimonio a esterespecto. El jurado recomendó una condena de muerte por ocho votos contracuatro.En los procedimientos posteriores a la condena se han presentado pruebas ytestimonios, no presentados durante el juicio, sobre la infancia de abusos yproblemas mentales de Ángel Díaz, y sobre su adicción a las drogas desde los 16años. También se ha argumentado que la acusación no desveló los indicios de quehabía sido Ángel Toro quien había disparado a Joseph Nagy. En un memorándumfechado el 6 de febrero de 1984, el fiscal escribió: "En algún momento, los tressujetos sacaron armas y anunciaron que se trataba de un robo. Se realizarondisparos. Al parecer, el acusado Toro agarró a Gina Fredericks por el cuello yla llevó de vuelta hacia la oficina, donde se encontraba la caja fuerte. Pareceser que la víctima Nagy salió de la oficina en ese momento. El acusado Torodisparó contra Nagy una vez en el pecho, causándole la muerte".Un estudio realizado recientemente bajo los auspicios del Proyecto deAplicación de la Suspensión de la Pena de Muerte, del Colegio Estadounidense deAbogados, identificó serios problemas en el sistema de aplicación de la penacapital en Florida, entre ellos el elevado índice de personas excarceladas del"corredor de la muerte" tras demostrarse su inocencia (22 desde 1973), laexistencia continuada de disparidades raciales y geográficas, el hecho de que nose requiere unanimidad en el jurado para imponer la pena y el hecho de que no seda peso suficiente a los efectos atenuantes de la discapacidad mental grave. ACCIONES RECOMENDADAS: Envíen sus llamamientos para que lleguen lo antesposible, en inglés o en su propio idioma:- manifestando su apoyo a la familia de Joseph Nagy, asesinado en 1979, yexplicando que no pretenden restar importancia a la gravedad de este crimen nidel sufrimiento que ha causado;- oponiéndose a la ejecución de Ángel Nieves Díaz, e indicando todas las señalesque ponen en duda su capacidad para ser juzgado y para representarse a sí mismo;- señalando la disparidad de las condenas en este caso, en el que un acusado harecibido una pena de cadena perpetua y el otro una condena de muerte, pese a lostestimonios contradictorios sobre quién fue el autor de los disparos; expresandoademás preocupación por el uso contra Ángel Díaz del testimonio de un informadorencarcelado, un tipo de testimonio notoriamente poco fiable;- señalando que cuatro de los miembros del jurado no votaron a favor de la penade muerte;- señalando que una reciente investigación ha detectado serios problemas en elsistema de aplicación de la pena capital en Florida, entre ellos la existenciade disparidades geográficas y raciales y el hecho de que no se requiereunanimidad en el jurado para imponer la pena;- pidiendo al gobernador que intervenga para detener esta ejecución.LLAMAMIENTOS A:Gobernador de FloridaGovernor Jeb Bush, The Capitol, 400 South Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399,EE. UU.Correo-E.: jeb.bush@myflorida.comFax: +1 850 487 0801Tratamiento: Dear Governor / Sr. GobernadorCOPIA A: la representación diplomática de Estados Unidos acreditada en su país.(EMBAJADA DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMERICA)C/ Serrano, 75 28006 - MADRIDTeléfono: 91 587 22 00 Fax: 91 587 23 03www.embusa.esamemb@embusa.esENVÍEN SUS LLAMAMIENTOS INMEDIATAMENTE.fuente:Amnistía internacional.
27/11/2006 20:23.

Notice of appeal filed in Angel Diaz November 22, 2006

The defense has filed an appeal to Florida Supreme Court November 22, 2006

Notice of appeal is here :

http://www.angel-diaz.us/legal/Filed_11-22-2006_NoticeAppeal.pdf

Angel Diaz denied by Miami Circuit Court November 21, 2006

The 11 judicial circuit court has summarily denied all Angel Diaz
issues November 21, 2006 and denied him access to necessary public records

Angel Diaz - from Karl Keys BLOG

http://www.capitaldefenseweekly.com/archives/061120.htm.


Finally, as noted by DPIC, the last execution scheduled for 2006 involves a Florida inmate, Angel Nieves-Diaz.

Diaz defended himself pro se at trial yet he did not speak English.

Diaz, a native of Puerto Rico, was convicted and sentenced to death in 1986 for a murder in connection with a robbery of a bar in Miami in 1979.

The case sat idle for 5 years until an accomplice, who was already serving a life sentence, came forward implicating Diaz.

The accomplice received another life sentence.

Atwood: We are all guilty of homicide

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/

COMMENTARY

Atwood: We are all guilty of homicide

Dave Atwood, TEXAS COALITION TO ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY

Monday, November 27, 2006 Texas has carried out 24 executions this year. It would have been 25, but Charles Nealy narrowly missed the executioner's needle on Nov.16. No other state in the Union had more than five executions; 46 states had one or none.

Texas continues to carry out executions with a vengeance, and that iswhat it is, institutionalized vengeance.

Texas does not have to do this.

The death penalty is not needed to protect society. Such protection can be achieved through long-term incarceration. And we now have life without parole as an optional punishment for capital murder.Furthermore, the death penalty does not deter violent crime by others. This was shown once again in a 1999 study by a number of Texas professors.

My heart goes out to the victims of crime and their families, but anexecution is not the answer to their pain. The healing they seek can be realized only through a loving God, a caring community and time. We are, sadly, all complicit when it comes to the death penalty in Texas. Politicians who support this punishment are particularly complicit because they use it as a means to promote their political careers. If they really wanted to be "tough on crime," they would strengthen programs that effectively prevent crime such as child protective services, mental health services and drug rehabilitation programs.The criminal justice system is complicit because it is biased in favor of executions. This begins with a system that excludes many people from serving on juries because they don't believe in the deathpenalty. It continues with incompetent and/or underfunded defense attorneys, judges who often allow grievous errors to go uncorrected, an appeals process that closes the door on legitimate claims, and a clemency process that fails to deliver either mercy or justice.

Texas has sent a number of innocent people to death row and has executed several with strong claims of innocence including Ruben Cantu, Cameron Willingham and Carlos Deluna.People who carry out the executions are also complicit.

Throughout history, people have committed atrocities and justified doing so bysaying they were just carrying out orders. That is not a valid excuse if we believe in personal responsibility. Christians who support the death penalty are complicit. Apparently they have forgotten Jesus'teachings about mercy and forgiveness. And the citizens of the state are complicit by continuing to elect politicians who support the deathpenalty, and by not protesting when executions are carried out in their names.

Much of the world considers the United States to be a huge violator of human rights. Texas, with nearly 380 executions since 1982, is considered the worst offender.

We may say that we don't care what others think, but I wonder how God will judge us.

We are all guilty of homicide.

We are all complicit.

Atwood, a member of Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, is on the Texas Murder Victims for Reconciliation advisory board.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Capital Defense Weekly on Angel Diaz

Thursday, November 23, 2006

New Resources

Several new resources we have been watching here (and two others that are new to us) that we should probably note.

The singularly most important of those resources is from the Capital Defense Network (no affiliation). The CDN crowd now provides limited updates of federal capital cases, both in post-conviction and at the trial level (although the latter seems to be lagging somewhat). Unfortunately no RSS feed exists for this invaluable resource BUT their depth of coverage on cases they chose to write about is far deeper and more germane than what you will see here. Capital litigation is my passion, it is there profession.

Several other blogs we are watching includes the international death penalty site of Amnesty International, MADPET-Malaysians Against Death Penalty & Torture, The China Law Blawg (which has been covering Chinese capital punishment developments with some frequency), and, finally, Angel Diaz (it appears to cover information relating to his imminent execution date in Florida).

The Death Penalty as Public Policy: Florida’s ‘Gutter of Shame’

TCADP Chairman Walter Moore reports:

November 24, 2006 on 7:31 pm

In Commentary, TCADP actions

I want to give you a report on the public forum, “The Death Penalty as Public Policy: Florida’s ‘Gutter of Shame’”, held last Monday evening and sponsored by ACLU of Florida, the Tallahassee branch of NAACP, the League of Women Voters of Tallahassee, and Tallahassee Citizens Against the Death Penalty.

I believe those of you who were there will agree that it was a solid success. Sheila Meehan was an able moderator, and the five panelists were truly a panel of experts.

The focus of the panel was the assessment of Florida’s administration of the death penalty, recently conducted under the auspices of the American Bar Association. Panelist Mike Minerva, a member of the ABA Assessment Team, described the report and listed its major criticisms and recommendations.

Dale Landry, who leads the NAACP’s efforts in criminal justice at both the local and the state level, pointed out that the criticisms in the ABA assessment echo the concerns that have been officially expressed by the NAACP. He welcomed and affirmed the ABA assessment. Larry Spalding, state lobbyist for ACLU, talked about the position of ACLU and emphasized the political character of decisions about the death penalty. Gale Anderson and Marty McClain, both death penalty lawyers with vast experience, used actual cases to illustrate some of the flaws in the system.&nbs!

If the panelists were impressive, so was the audience. By my rough count, attendance was at least 170, most of them students from FAMU, FSU, and TCC. The panelists gave them plenty to think about. About half of the audience signed a petition calling upon Governor-Elect Crist to suspend executions until the problems identified in the ABA assessment can be addressed. (If we hadn’t run out of petitions, more people would have signed.)

Thanks are due first of all to Sheila and the panelists for sharing their expertise with us. Thanks also to the sponsoring organizations for strong support. We owe a special thanks to Aeriel Coleman, our student intern for this project. It was obvious that Aeriel had done an effective job of reaching and motivating the students.

This forum reflected a productive partnership among the sponsoring organizations. I look forward to more of the same in the future.

“The Death Penalty as Public Policy: Florida’s ‘Gutter of Shame’”,

http://www.tcadp.net/

TCADP Chairman Walter Moore reports:

November 24, 2006 on 7:31 pm
In Commentary, TCADP actions No Comments


I want to give you a report on the public forum, “The Death Penalty as Public Policy: Florida’s ‘Gutter of Shame’”, held last Monday evening and sponsored by ACLU of Florida, the Tallahassee branch of NAACP, the League of Women Voters of Tallahassee, and Tallahassee Citizens Against the Death Penalty. I believe those of you who were there will agree that it was a solid success. Sheila Meehan was an able moderator, and the five panelists were truly a panel of experts. Read More


Walter Moore writes today …November 18, 2006 on 4:14 pm In Case news, TCADP actions No Comments
First, dreadful news. Governor Bush has signed another death warrant. Angel Diaz is scheduled for execution Wednesay evening, December 13. I will send more information about the case later.
Second, a final reminder about the public forum:
THE DEATH PENALTY AS PUBLIC POLICY:FLORIDA’S ‘GUTTER OF SHAME’Monday, November 20, 7:00 p.m.Community of Faith Church1533 South Monroe Street
Panelists:Gale Anderson, Attorney for Prisoners on Death RowDale Landry, Tallahassee Chapter of NAACPMarty McClain, Attorney for Prisoners on Death RowMichael Minerva, Florida Death Penalty Assessment TeamLarry Spalding, American Civil Liberties Union of Florida
Moderator:Sheila Meehan, Tallahassee Citizens Against the Death Penalty
Sponsors: American Civil Liberties Union of Florida,League of Women Voters of TallahasseeTallahassee Chapter of NAACPTallahassee Citizens Against the Death Penalty
The Community of Faith Church is on the east side of Monroe Street (on your left if you are driving south), at the corner of Monroe and Jennings.
This promises to be an impressive event. I hope you and your friends can make it.

Friday, November 24, 2006

Urgent Action Appeal - Amnesty International - Angel Diaz

URGENT ACTION APPEAL

To read the current newsletter, go to
http://www.amnestyusa.org/urgent/newslett.html

Organize a Global Writeathon this December 10!
http://www.amnestyusa.org/writeathon
----------------------------------

24 November 2006
UA 317/06
Death penalty/Legal concern

USA (Florida)

Angel Nieves Diaz (m), aged 55

Angel Nieves Diaz is scheduled for execution in Florida on 13 December 2006. He was sentenced to death in 1986 for the murder during a robbery of bar manager Joseph Nagy in Miami in 1979.

Joseph Nagy was the bar manager of the Velvet Swing Lounge. He was shot dead on 29 December 1979, when a group of three men robbed the bar. There were no eyewitnesses to the shooting. Angel Diaz and Angel Toro were charged with first-degree murder in 1984, but the trial was delayed until December 1985. By that time, Angel Toro had pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in return for a life sentence.

Puerto Rican native Angel Diaz was represented by a lawyer until shortly after the jury had been selected. Just before the opening arguments of his trial began, and against the advice of his lawyer, he decided to conduct his own defense. The lawyer informed the judge that Angel Diaz had “exhibited rather bizarre tendencies” in previous days, including not responding to the lawyer’s questions or responding to them with irrational answers. The lawyer said that in the previous 24 hours, Angel Diaz had rejected the defense they had developed over the previous months.

The judge questioned the defendant about his decision. Through an interpreter (his English was limited), Angel Diaz said that he had never read a law book, had “no idea” about how a trial in Florida was conducted or about “what I may be able to argue”. The judge advised him that “since you have no ability to speak the English language in this court, you have no knowledge of the law, you did not [finish high school], it would appear to this Court that it would be impossible for you to act as an attorney in your own defense”. Angel Diaz kept to his decision and the judge ruled that it had been freely and intelligently made.

The judge arranged for two psychiatrists to evaluate Diaz after proceedings that day on his competency to stand trial. Meanwhile, the trial began with Diaz making an opening statement and the state presenting five witnesses before the trial recessed for the day. The two doctors evaluated Angel Diaz that evening. The following morning, a “competency hearing” was held, without Angel Diaz or his stand-by counsel present. The record of the hearing consists of a few sentences. One of the doctors told the judge: “Angel Diaz is competent. But he did express to me that he would like some technical legal help in defending himself”. The judge then said that he had had a report from the other doctor, who was not present, that Angel Diaz was “very competent”. The trial was then allowed to proceed.

Post-conviction assessments by two mental health experts concluded that Angel Diaz suffers from certain mental disorders which contributed to his decision to represent himself and undermined his ability to do so competently. The lawyer who represented him until the opening of the trial signed an affidavit stating that “I do not believe Angel Diaz was competent to represent himself. As a result, Mr Diaz asked questions he should not have asked and could not object to certain questions and evidence after my advising him to through the interpreter. I do not believe he adequately understood the legal system and the conduct of the trial due to cultural differences and language barriers, among other reasons”.

Throughout the trial, Angel Diaz was made to wear shackles. During jury selection, his lawyer had objected to the shackles, but the judge responded that Diaz could cover them with his trousers or the lawyer could place his brief case in front of Diaz’s legs. However, once Angel Diaz was representing himself, the shackles were visible to the jury, raising concerns about their prejudicial effect on the presumption of innocence. In addition, a defendant’s perceived dangerousness has been shown to be highly aggravating in the minds of US capital jurors deciding between life and death sentences.

Angel Diaz’s former girlfriend testified that on the night of the robbery, he had told her that Angel Toro had shot a man during the robbery. The testimony of two other witnesses, who had been in the bar at the time of the robbery, indicated that Angel Diaz was not the gunman. However, a jailhouse informant testified that when they had been held in the same jail, Angel Diaz had indicated that he had shot Joseph Nagy. Jailhouse informant testimony is notoriously unreliable.

The Commission on Capital Punishment, set up by the Governor of Illinois after he imposed a moratorium on executions in 2000, examined the question of such testimony. The Commission’s April 2002 report concluded that, even with stringent safeguards on the use of such evidence, “the potential for testimony of questionable reliability remains high, and imposing the death penalty in such cases appears ill-advised.”

The jury retired to deliberate on the question of guilt. During their deliberations, they requested copies of the testimony of the former girlfriend and the jailhouse informant, but the judge refused to provide it, instructing the jury to rely on its recollection of what the witnesses had said. The jury returned a guilty verdict.

The sentencing was held two weeks later. At the beginning of the sentencing, although demanding to represent himself, Angel Diaz admitted to the court that he was not capable of representing himself adequately. The court subsequently appointed his stand-by lawyer to represent him at the sentencing. Angel Diaz refused to permit the lawyer to question the first few prosecution witnesses. The lawyer argued in mitigation that Angel Diaz had only been an accomplice to the crime, but presented no new evidence of this. The jury recommended a death sentence by eight votes to four.

In post-conviction proceedings, evidence not raised at the trial has been raised about Angel Diaz’s childhood of abuse and mental problems, and his addiction to drugs from the age of 16. It has also been claimed that the prosecution failed to disclose evidence that it was Angel Toro who shot Joseph Nagy. In a memorandum dated 6 February 1984, the prosecutor wrote: “At some point, all three subjects pulled out guns and announced a robbery. Shots were fired. Defendant Toro apparently grabbed Gina Fredericks around the neck and took her back to the area of the office where the safe was located. Apparently, victim Nagy came out of the office at that time. Defendant Toro shot Nagy once in the chest causing his death”.

A recent study conducted under the auspices of the American Bar Association’s Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project identified serious problems in Florida’s capital justice system, including the high number of people released from death row on the grounds of innocence (22 since 1973), the continued existence of racial and geographic disparities, the fact that unanimity is not required in jury sentencing decisions, and the failure to give sufficient weight to the mitigating effects of serious mental disability.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible:
- expressing sympathy for the family of Joseph Nagy, who was killed in 1979, and explaining that you are not seeking to downplay the seriousness of this crime or the suffering caused;
- opposing the execution of Angel Nieves Diaz, noting evidence calling into question his competency to stand trial and represent himself;
- noting the disparity in sentencing in this case, with one defendant receiving a life sentence and another death, despite conflicting evidence about who was the gunman, and expressing concern at the use of jailhouse informant testimony against Angel Diaz, a notoriously unreliable form of testimony;
- noting that four of the jurors did not vote for the death penalty;
- noting that recent research has found serious problems with Florida’s capital justice system, including geographic and racial disparities, and the lack of a requirement for unanimity in jury sentencing decisions;
- calling on the Governor to intervene to stop this execution.

APPEALS TO:
Governor Jeb Bush
The Capitol
400 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399, USA
Email: jeb.bush@myflorida.com
Fax: 1 850 487 0801
Salutation:Dear Governor

PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY.

----------------------------------
Tip of the Month:
If you have questions, please call, write, fax, or email
the AIUSA Urgent Action office. Also, please note our
new address in DC (below), and update your records
if you have our old Colorado address on file.

** POSTAGE RATES **
Within the United States:
$0.24 - Postcards
$0.39 - Letters and Cards (up to 1 oz.)
To Mexico and Canada:
$0.55 - Postcards
$0.63 - Airmail Letters and Cards (up to 1 oz.)
$0.75 - Aerogrammes
To all other destination countries:
$0.75 - Postcards
$0.84 - Airmail Letters and Cards (up to 1 oz.)
$0.75 - Aerogrammes

Amnesty International is a worldwide grassroots movement
that promotes and defends human rights.

This Urgent Action may be reposted if kept intact, including
contact information and stop action date (if applicable).
Thank you for your help with this appeal.

Urgent Action Network
Amnesty International USA
600 Pennsylvania Ave SE 5th fl
Washington DC 20003
Email: uan@aiusa.org
http://www.amnestyusa.org/urgent/
Phone: 202.544.0200
Fax: 202.675.8566

----------------------------------
END OF URGENT ACTION APPEAL
----------------------------------

You are receiving this email because you registered to
participate in the Urgent Action Network. If you wish to
unsubscribe from this list, reply to this email (please keep
the full text) and write 'unsubscribe' in the subject heading.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Florida Schedules Execution of Man Who Defended Himself, But Could Not Speak English - Angel Diaz

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1977&scid=64

Florida Schedules Execution of Man Who Defended Himself, But Could Not Speak English


The last execution scheduled for 2006 involves a Florida inmate, Angel Nieves-Diaz, who defended himself at his trial and needed an interpreter because he did not speak English.

Diaz, a native of Puerto Rico, was convicted and sentenced to death in 1986 for a murder in connection with a robbery of a bar in Miami in 1979.

The case sat idle for 5 years until an accomplice, who was already serving a life sentence, came forward implicating Diaz. The accomplice received another life sentence.

Diaz's execution is scheduled for December 13 and would be the 4th execution in Florida this year, the most executions in that state in 6 years.

In addition to his claims that his representation failed to produce a fair trial, Diaz is also challenging the lethal injection process in Florida
.
Groups in Puerto Rico, which bars the death penalty in its constitution, are urging that Diaz receive clemency from the governor.(Sun-Sentinel (AP), Nov. 14, 2006; Miami Herald, Nov. 15, 2006; letter from Civil Rights Commission of Puerto Rico, Nov. 20, 2006).

See Representation and Arbitrariness.

His turn for turning the other cheek

His turn for turning the other cheek

MEG LAUGHLIN

Published November 23, 2006
STARKE - Five years ago Dennis O'Neill chucked a lucrative career as a warden of a death row prison. When he came back to Starke two years later he was an Episcopal priest with an antideath penalty message.
"I realized I wanted to be part of a healing, merciful world, not a punishing one," he says.

Every Sunday, in an old pine church, O'Neill takes the pulpit to lead a small revolution of progressive thought and action.
It's not the easiest way to build a congregation in a town long known for its hard line attitudes on crime and punishment.

"Florida is the only state where the farther north you go, the more you're in the Deep South," says Pam Whittle of the Starke Chamber of Commerce, "and Starke is definitely in North Florida."
But on the Sunday before Thanksgiving, about three dozen loyal parishioners squint in the burgundy and cobalt light of the 134-year-old stained glass windows of St. Mark's Episcopal and bask in O'Neill's message of compassion.

They are old Starke families, who, like O'Neill, either work or worked in the nearby death row prisons - Florida State Prison and Union Correctional Institution - or have families who do. Their names have been part of prison culture for generations.

They will tell you they did not come naturally to their newfound beliefs. But having been led by one of their own, they are now determined, when they promise to "love their neighbors as themselves," to include those 5,000 neighbors behind bars 11 miles down the road.

"Father O'Neill has helped us see that there are people on the street who belong out there in prison, just as there are people in the prisons who belong on the street," said Millie Winkler, a retired prison worker.
"The church has taught me if you're kind to people, including inmates, you teach them kindness," said Ilse Griffis, another retired prison employee.

Death penalty change

O'Neill had been an assistant warden at Florida State Prison for two years and warden at Union Correctional Institution for seven years, both death row prisons. After being involved in one way or another with more than a dozen executions over 14 years, O'Neill became opposed to the death penalty.

"For years, I told myself it was the law of the land, and went along with it," he says. "But several things really got to me: the arbitrary nature of who was executed. The fact that the person strapped in the chair or gurney often showed genuine, heartfelt change and was rarely the same person who committed the crime. And, my realization that antiseptic killing is as bad as raw and naked killing.

"I didn't want to be a part of it anymore," he says.

He also became increasingly troubled, he says, by the "increasing strictness" of the prison system in the 1990s and everything taken away from inmates - "from educational programs to colored pencils."
"How could they grow as human beings with nothing to do but sit?" he asks.

He recalls three incidents that particularly upset him: A death row inmate was not allowed by correction officers to have a Bible before his execution. O'Neill gave him one. A Muslim inmate was told he must drink liquids for a daytime drug test even though he was fasting in observance of Ramadan. O'Neill insisted the test be done at night so the inmate could follow his religion. The two children of condemned inmate Jesse Tafero called O'Neill and sobbed on the phone the night before Tafero caught on fire in the electric chair.

"That was haunting," he says.

Different atmosphere

In 2001, O'Neill, 55, and his wife, Marianne, left the Florida Department of Corrections for the mountains of Tennessee so he could study at the Episcopal seminary at the University of the South.

"What a different environment that was," he says, listing some of his classmates: two lawyers, a doctor and an actor in TV commercials.
"Like me they believed that any human action that diminishes the humanity of another is a sin," he says.

In 2003, O'Neill was ordained as an Episcopal priest in his hometown of Jacksonville and assigned to St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Starke, where he had been a parishioner when he was a warden.
"We trusted him because he was one of us," says Winkler. "We cheered when he came back here as our priest."

But, she said, they were surprised when their old warden and his wife returned with a "straightforward message about dropping our prejudices and judgmental tendencies."

Church on the move

In the past year, the O'Neills have attracted several new families to the church, including one Hispanic and one black family. But they lost three families the year before, after an openly gay priest was ordained as a bishop in New Hampshire.

Those families had asked for O'Neill's assurance that he was against the gay bishop.

"Practically everyone is confused about what is sexually acceptable, and I can't judge what is and what isn't," he told them. "But I can say I think pride is a much clearer sin than anyone's sexual choices." One family switched to Madison Street Baptist Church, a few blocks away.

The size of a Wal-Mart Supercenter, Madison Street Baptist attracts about a thousand people in two back-to-back services every Sunday, as compared to three dozen at St. Mark's, which has 112 members.
"Madison Street appeals to most people around here," says Whittle. "But little St. Mark's is on the move."

A nine-piece band kicks off the service at the Baptist church with a rock-style hymn. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Madison Street Winn-Dixie, where the last meal is purchased for those about to be executed, the lone organist at the small Episcopal church begins to play a hymn from the 19th century.

Dennis O'Neill enters in a white robe draped with a long prayer shawl covered with the smiling faces of yellow, brown and beige children.
A parishioner reads from Hebrews: "After you were enlightened ... you had compassion on the prisoners."

O'Neill tells his congregation: "The Holy Scriptures is about blessed hope, not eternal suffering."

He prays, "May we carry peace and love in all of our acts in the world."
'Growing together'

After the service, on this chilly November day, the O'Neills stand on the steps of the simple white church, built in 1872, and greet parishioners.
They talk about church activities: helping out at the local Head Start preschool program, building homes for Habitat for Humanity, sitting with the dying at a nearby hospice and feeding the homeless. They also talk about the inmates at the death row prisons down the road.

"I tell my relatives who work out there that we all have a bad side and being unkind can make anyone's bad side worse, including a prisoner's," says church member Jackie Grider.

O'Neill beams as he talks about how they are all "growing together."
"It's when we act on our conscience that we touch that spark of divinity in ourselves," he says, "and I believe we're doing that right here."

Times researcher Angie Drobnic Holan contributed to this report.
Meg Laughlin can be reached at mlaughlin@sptimes.com or (727) 893-8068.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Contribution from Angel in Spanish

23 de Marzo 1998.

Hon. Pedro Roselló
Gobernador de P.R.
El Capitolio
San Juan, P.R.


Hon. Gobernador Roselló,

Mi nombre es Angel M. Nieves Díaz. Respetuosamente me dirijo a usted para por este medio tener la oportunidad de solicitar su intervención en contra de la injusticia, a la cual mi persona ha sido y sigue siendo objeto en mi caso ante las autoridades del estado de la Florida, E.U.

A través de la presente pretendo compartir con ustedmi experienca en algunas situaciones relativas a mi caso, y los años que llevo esperando se haga justicia. Paraque usted tenga una idea de la situación estoy llevando a su atencióm, como puertorriqueño, cristiano, padre y miembro de una familia humide puertorriqueña.

Para finales del mes de diciembre de 1985 se me celebró un juicio ante la presencia de un jurado, en el tribunal de la cuidad de Miami, Florida, por lasacusaciones de un homicidio y robo. Se me sentenció a las penas siguientes : morir en la silla eléctrica y a cumplir 836 años de prisión. En dicho juici era obvo que las posibilidades de defenderme y probar mi inocencia eran ninguna; pues aparte que el procedimiento del mismo mas bien podriamos caracterizarlo co los procedimientos judiciales que ha criticdo el gobierno de los Estados Unidos en otro paises donde sus goernantes se les señalan ser dictadored, y donde no existen el respeto de los derechos humanos y las garantias constitucionales que tienen los cuidadanos e una democracia.También, está el hecho corrupto de las autoridades de esta sistme de justicia que tienen a su dispoción el utilizar los medios noticiosos para inferir serios daños publicamente con la persona, fabricándosele acusaciones totalmente falsas con el fin de manipular un sentir en el público de repudio en contra de la persona y crear el deinterés del público, de la suerte que pueda correr la personaen mano de las autoridades.

Dicho ejemplo fue lo sucedido en mi caso, dos meses antes de celebrarse mi juicio. Mi persona fue el objeto de na difamatoria y viciada campaña publicitaria por parte de las autoridads policiacas y la oficina del fiscal, a través de los medios noticiosos locales, donde los medios noticiosos me acusaron de ser yo un terrorista. Me acusaron de ser lider de un grupo terrorista llamado Horizonte y formar parte de otro grupo coocido por los macheteros puertorriqueños y de planificar un supuesto intento de escape de la cárcel de Miami. Resulta claro que los responsables de esas fabricaciones my bien conocian que la ciudad de Miami está poblada mavormente por ciudadanos particularmente exiliados, por razones políticas ; por lo que se sabe que la ciudad de Miami es una de las ciuades en los E.U. de mas actividad politica en lucha en contra del comunismo. Señalarse a una persona terrorista en dicha ciudad es igual que señalar a una persona comunista y con ell garantiarle el odio y repudio de la comunidad en contra de la persona señalada.

Por consiguiente dichas acusaciones fueron las que usaron las autoridades para justificar que se me juzgara en una sala estrictamente cerrada al úblico, donde habia una pared transparente a prueb de balas entre el jurado y mi persona. Mis piernas estuvieron con cadenas durante el juicio. El grupo de personas que asistieron al juiciu estaba compuesto de un grupo numeroso de agentes de la policia. Fui obligado a defenderme PRO-SE, sin abogado, ante el hecho realista de las circunstancias injustas que la juez queria llevar mi juicio, las cuale se sobreponian en extremo a los prejuicos que he mencionado y que acontinuación le estaré mencionando :

Primero : Habia conocido al abogado que la corte asignó para la representación de mi difesa por primera vez, tres dias antes de la fecha a comenzar mi juicio.

Segundo : Al momento del da señalado a presentarme a juicio, unicamente habia tenido dos entrevistas con este abogado; a quién obviamente no conocia suficiente. No tuve la oportunidad de tener un periodo de tiempo just y razonable para que discutieramos el asunto del caso y poder familiarizarme con sus planes en mi defena y probar mi inocencia en las acusaciones.
En la primera entrevista fue cuando lo conocí por primera vez y se me informó que mi juicio se celebraría en tres días a partir de ese día. La misma fue de menos de 15 minutos de duración, por la razón de queno había presente un traductor de idioma. La segunda entrevista tuvo lugar un día antes de celebrarse el juicoi y fue de menos duracíon que la primera, tampoco estuvo presente un traductor de idioma. La visita se limitó exclusivament a informarme el abogad que ese día el fiscal había propuesto un negocio y que sobre ese asunto a él le gustaría hablarlo conmigo al siguiente día n la corte con un traductor de idioma presente. Ante esas extra ñas circunstancias y situaciones que confrontaba, peí hablar con la juez, y en esa oportunidad solicité una extensión de tiempo de aproximadamente una semana o mas, poniendo como argumento las situaciones que he mencionado a usted Honorable Gobernador Roselló, en esa carta.

La juez se opuso a concederme la xtensión de tiempo, amenazando que si no estaba conformecon la representación del abogado que mi asignó la corte podiá y tenía yo el derecho de representarme yo mismo, ya que estab planeado comenzar el juicio esa mañana. Por consiguiente decidi renunciar a la representación del abogado, pues no podía confiar mi vida y mi libertad, en manos de una persona que n onocia, ni me inspiró confianza y se mantuvo indiferente ane lo injusto de las situaciones por as que me sometian a juicio.

En quanto el procedimiento de apelaciones en mi caso es también injusto. Vuelvo a vivir la mismo horrorosa pesadilla que iví en mi juicio. Desde el momento de la convicción a la actualidad llevo 12 años viendo como este sistema de justicia juega con mi vida, mi dignidad, mi libertad y mi espera por justicia ; de igual modo con el sufrimiento de mis familiares.

Agredezco su atención Hon. Gobernador Roselló y el que usted interceda en esta injusticia que contra mi persona se ha cometido. Muchisimas gracias y qu la pas de Dios sea con usted y su familia. Espero escuchar de usted pronto.

Respetuosamente,

Angel M Nieves Díaz

Monday, November 20, 2006

Contribution from Angel

When you want to receive this article in Spanish , give a comment on this article and we will send this to you by e- mail .


Hello,

My name is Angel M. Nieves Diaz, I am on Death Row and I want to takeout all a the light public, because the state of Florida want to kill me, I put my case for inform the peoples of the nerve and injustice that the court want to commit with me, ok?
The 23rd of March of 1998 I wrote this letter to the Honourable Roselló governing of Puerto Rico.

Honourable
Pedro Roselló
Governing of Puerto Rico
The Capitol
San Juan Puerto Rico

My name is Angel M. Nieves and I write to you to respect fully request that you please intervene against the injustice that the state of Florida is committing against me.

Please, allow me first to share with you my experiences in some situations related to my case, during the years that I had been waiting for justice. I write to you sir, as a Christian, as a father, a member of a humble family and a fellow Puerto Rican.

Sir, at the end of the month of December 1985, I was judged ion the presence of a jury in a tribunal on the city of Miami, Florida, on charge of homicide and theft and sentenced as followed: 836 years on jail and-or to die in the electric chair.
But during the trial it became clear that the proceeding were not in compliance with those constitutional guarantees that the law assure to all citizens, but that instead was more like those proceedings that take place under those regimes and dictatorships that the US Government itself is constantly criticizing for violating human rights and dignity and are not in compliance with any requirement, fairness and justice.

Furthermore, there is also the fact that the authorities misused the media to create public hostility against myself, this, considering the fact that here judges are elected to their job by that same hostile public and because of it, no judge ever want to appear soft on crime, or he will loose his job. There is always the tendency of such judges to overlook procedural mistakes made if correcting them may bring about a result contrary to the public desire. This is a pervertion of justice.

On my case, two months prior to my trial, the police in conjunction with the offices of the States procecutor, engaged in a campaign where they use the media to present me as a dangerous terrorist. They accused me of being the leader of a group of Terrorists called Horizon and of being part of another group known by the Puerto Rican Macheros and also of planning a supposed attempt to escape from Miami jail.

It is known to everybody that the city of Miami Population is in their majority made by people that have left their own country for political reasons, about all, people who have left behind communist regimes and dictatorship, where they and their families were killed or abused. Accordingly, it is well known that to accuse a person, to march him as a terrorist on a city like Miami is guaranteed that the evil community is going to repudiate that person. This, without a doubt, affects his rights to a fair trial.

The government used the fact that they accused me of terrorism to obtain a trial closed to the public. During trial I was placed behind a wall of bullet proof glass, which gave the jury the impression that I was a very dangerous person. This was further aggravated by the fact that my legs where chained also. Even when my trial was closed to the public, a great number of law enforcement agents were allowed to come in and observe.

I was forced to defend myself PRO-SE, without a lawyer. I saw the lawyer assigned to me by the court to work on my case the first time, only 3 days before the start of the trial. By the day mark as the one for the First Court of the trial. I had only talked to this lawyer 2 times. The law of the US allowed me the right to have a meaningful participation on my own defense. Still, as these facts show, I was not allowed a reasonable opportunity to do so. On our first interview he informed me that the trial was to begin in 3 days, that interview lasted approximately 15 minutes, because there was not a translator available and I do not speak English, the second interview took place 1 day prior to the trial itself and was even shorter than the first one, once more there was no translator. This second visit was limited to inform me that that day the prosecutor was proposing a deal and that he, my lawyer wanted to discuss it with me the next day, prior to the start of my trial.

Under this unfair circumstances I requested to speak with the judge and asked or an extension of time of approximately 2 or 3 weeks, but the judge refused to do so. And, to aggravate my situation, the judge informed me that if I was not satisfied with the representation of the lawyer that I had been assigned, then I have the right to represent myself sine the trial was already to begin that morning. Since I cannot put not just my liberty, but also my life in the hands of someone that neither inspired nor trust, nor do anything to assure that he had my best interest in mind, someone that do nothing to protect me from unfair actions of the state when I had just meet, I had no other choice to give up the lawyer and defend myself.

The process of appealing my case is no different, I am reliving the same nightmare from my trial. From my initial conviction to this point I have 12 years of seeing how this system plays with not only my liberty, but also with my dignity and my life and with the suffering of my family.

I ask you, sir, as a Christian , a fellow human being and Puerto Rican, that you please intervene against this injustice. Me and my family will be eternally grateful for your help.
I hope to hear from you soon.

Respectfully,

Angel M. Nieves Díaz.