THE TRIAL:
The trial began on April 8th, 1980. The majority of the commonwealth witnesses established only that a crime had occurred but not the identity of the perpetrator(s). The commonwealth’s case rested on the testimony of one witness, George Lawrence, who testified to events that occurred on June 17th, 1979. he testified that he was in a conversation with some people at about eight in the evening when he witnessed a group of white youths get out of a car and chase a group of black youths. Shortly thereafter, he had seen figures on the box factory rooftop. The people with Lawrence were “material witnesses” however, no statements were taken nor did they ever testify to corroborate what Mr. Lawrence testified to. No one ever investigated who they were or what they had seen. Lawrence also testified he would return to New Jersey and serve seven years. Furthermore, he stated that he was not offered a deal or a promise of leniency in exchange for his testimony. Exhibit H
The commonwealth had confiscated a pair of sneakers from the house I was arrested in, 6078 Regent Street. The prosecutor was determined to link me to those sneakers and the crime because there was no evidence which she had, other than the fabricated claims she made. Detective Lubiejewski testified that he obtained a statement from me which stated I admitted the sneakers confiscated belonged to me. When conflicting statements in regards to the events surfaced, however, he finally responded as to why the statement lacked the signature of the defendant. He said that the defendant stated the whole thing was bullshit. Exhibit L Officer Warner, a member of the mobile crime unit, collected evidences (shell casings, blood, footprint impressions) from the crime scene. He testified that he was directed by commonwealth’s expert witness, Mr. Brenner, a forensic chemist, to create evidence by taking the sneakers confiscated from 6078 Regent Street and the impressions made on the rooftop and determine them to be a match. In his report, he stated the prints were no more than “3 weeks old”. That wasn’t good enough for the prosecutor. Exhibit K She manipulated Mr. Brenner into testifying the impressions were made after 1:45 pm on the “same day” of the crime. The defense counsel had the impressions and sneakers examined by the F.B.I and they stated there was no way to determine when the impressions were made.
The defense counsel repeatedly allowed the prosecutor to place before the jury, totally irrelevant and highly prejudicial testimony without any objections. It got so out of control that the court had to direct my defense attorney to start objecting to prejudicial evidence being entered by the prosecutor. Exhibit M
Co-defendant’s attorney was questioning a witness regarding a statement he gave police, whether it was typed or handwritten. The witness stated it was handwritten. Counsel never received a written statement by this witness from the prosecutor and was asking to see it. Within minutes, the judge was going off on the prosecutor because of her unethical conduct, telling her repeatedly to “shut up”. Exhibit I
Prior to Detective Lubiejewski’s testimony, defense counsel asked for an off of proof, which is where the detective and attorneys go into the judges chambers with the judge and the witness states what his testimony is going to be. The detective came out of chambers and took the stand. He mentioned narcotics confiscated from 6078 Regent Street. He deliberately failed to state this in his offer of proof because he knew it would be prejudicial. The owner of the house had been criminally charged for this, not me. The purpose of this was obviously to inflame the jurors against me and falsely conflate someone else’s drug case with my trial. Exhibit J
The judge made the following remarks in chambers out of the presence of the jury concerning the testimony of Detective Lubiejewski for the record: “Well, I don’t want to be getting into the field of cautionary instructions as much as I am. I think it is completely uncalled for. Any reference to this, I think we should keep the reference to what the district attorney has given in her offer of proof, and nowhere did I hear any reference to narcotics, and I think it is nothing but inflammatory”. Exhibit T
The statement Forbes allegedly gave police was read before the jury repeatedly. However, because Forbes never testified, I was denied the right to face my accuser and to question the truthfulness of the statement. Had Forbes testified, the jury would have known that he never mentioned my name in the statement, as well as, how the statement was obtained. The court had merely removed my name and put an “x” in place. Since there were only two people charged and they sat side by side throughout the entire proceeding, it was readily apparent who “x” was meant to represent. That was the commonwealth’s case against me… merely circumstantial and conjectured material. There was not a scintilla of convincing evidence of guilt.
THE VERDICT:
May 2nd, 1980, the jury leaves the courtroom at 12:18 pm to deliberate.
At 2:30 the court received a note:
“Question, on aggravated assault charged against Robert Forbes, which Jones brother was not hit by the bullet. What are the rules on assault? Can one be assaulted without contact of any kind”?
At 2:50 another note was given:
“Please furnish the transcripts of Robert Forbes’ statements one and two given to the police in Sharon Hill”.
The court advised the jury in regard to the first question about assault. But on question two he stated, “Under the rules of the Supreme Court we are not allow to send out with the jury the statements of any defendant”.
The jury returned to deliberation at 3 o’clock. At 4:05 pm, the jury entered the courtroom with the verdict. Robert Forbes and I were convicted of third degree murder, three counts of aggravated assault, and conspiracy. Exhibit T