Tuesday, February 3, 2004

The Evidence Alex Litte's Incriminating Testimony

Thursday, October 21, 2010

The Evidence

Re: The “Jane Crow” [1] era, Jeep v. United States of America[2]

As I referenced previously with my appeals, my petition for a writ of certiorari and in my prior correspondents with you and because I know you never took the time to look at them, I NOW include for the record:
1.      A copy of the trial transcript (SD26269.doc), where Officer Little gave false testimony
2.      A copy of the “U.S. Department of Transportation DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Participant Manual” 2002 Edition (NHSTA) Page VIII-11, Section 4. Test Conditions, Second Paragraph, last sentence that proves his testimony to be false.  Note I asked specifically for this information in pretrial motions[3]The Prosecutor[4] and the Police[5] clearly presented false EVIENCE to convict me!!!!!!  

If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
“Time is of the essence”
David G. Jeep

STATE OF MISSOURI,                         )
              Respondent,                           )
v.                                                        )  S. D. No. 26269
DAVID G. JEEP,                                  )
              Appellant.                               )
The Honorable Bruce Colyer, Judge
STATE OF MISSOURI,                         )
              Plaintiff,                                  )
v.                                                        )  Cause No. CR203-1336M
DAVID G. JEEP,                                  )
              Defendant.                              )
ALEX LITTLE, called as a witness in behalf of the STATE, being duly sworn, testified as follows:

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JEEP:  Excerpt starting page 84

Q.         The walk-and-turn and the balance test, the standards for applying that test, do they reference anything about footwear?
A.         Yes.  They say that if a person has on footwear that has like greater than four-inch heels, then you can allow them to take their footwear off, if they want to, to perform the test.
Q.         Is it a four-inch heel?
A.         Yes, sir.
Q.         Or a two-inch heel?
A.         It's a--If I'm not mistaken, it's a four-inch heel.
Q.         Do you have that in writing anywhere?
A.         Not on me now, no.
MR. JEEP:  Do you have that?  I asked for this earlier, Judge.  No one was able to present me with it or they told me to look for it, and I looked under the NHTSA, I called NHTSA, they wanted me to buy it from them--
THE COURT:  Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.  No.
MR. JEEP:  Excuse me.  They--The--
THE COURT:  You asked the question, he's answered it.
MR. JEEP:  Okay. 
Q.         There's no place where this is standardized?  Do you have in your--in writing anyplace?
A.         I would assume I had it with the information that they gave me in the academy.
Q.         Okay.  And you think it's four-inch?
A.         Yes, sir.

[1] The Court’s bias for a woman’s rights over a man’s rights with unequal protection of the Law, family law.
[2] A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America “Opposed to Immunity” currently on file in the Supreme Court clerk’s office, 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947, U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM -- State Court Case No.: 03FC-10670M, Missouri Court of Appeals eastern District ED84021, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 07-2614, Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 & State Court Case # CR203-1336M, Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District SD26269, U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri 07-0506-CV-W-SOW Jeep v Bennett, et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 08-1823 (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/).
[3] “Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Pp.8 866-88. BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)
[4] Due Process of Law as defined by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), says: “We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.Page 373 U. S. 87