Bruce R. Petush
I recently had the privilege of reading correspondence of yours to a friend
here. I was very intrigued with what you are doing with the Internet.
I am particularly interested in your interest in helping people who have
been wrongly convicted.
I am 48 years old and currently serving a 15-30 year prison sentence for
a crime that did not occur. I am the victim of an overzealous prosecutor
who presented a case that was insufficiently investigated by an inexperienced
police detective.
Please find enclosed the Statement of Facts for my case. I took this
case to trial because I believed that the jury would find that the child
misinterpreted events that occurred that night, and because he was a victim
of a prior sexual molestation by a family member, but did not receive any
treatment, had simply made a mistake.
I told police that I did not have any intentional contact with the child
that night, but because of his restlessness and moving around in the bed,
while I was asleep, there might have been an inadvertent touching, but that
touching was not sexual.
There were many things that occurred in the trial that supports my contention
that I did not receive a fair and impartial trial. I believe I was
overcharged in this instance in order to obtain a conviction (I was originally
charged with 2 counts CSC 2nd and both were essentially the same in the information).
I believe that the testimony elicited at trial indicates the possibility
of fabrication and that the young victim may have been manipulated by an inexperienced
police detective, to misrepresent the facts of his allegations. This
contention is supported by the investigating police officer in her testimony
during direct examination of her description of what the victim told her
I allegedly did to him.
The officer only described one offense: …”he rubbed his leg on his private
area…”.
The prosecutor clarified this statement by stating “So you described to
the defendant a situation in which he would have been laying on the child?
Witness: yes.”
Prosecutor: “Rubbing his leg on the child’s genitals?”
Witness: “Yes.”
There was no description that I had rubbed my privates on him.
Then during direct examination of the victim he answered “No”, in response
to the prosecutor’s question, “Did he ever touch your private parts?”.
Prior to this statement, however, he was allowed to substantiate the first
charge in his response to the prosecutor’s question “What did he do to you
Cameron?”
Cameron: “He rubbed his leg up and down on me in the middle of the night.”
Q: “I’m sorry.”
A: “He rubbed his leg on me in the middle of the night.”
Q: What part of you did he rub his leg on?
A: (Now he changes his reference). “He rubbed his private part on
me--on my leg.”
Later, prior to final arguments and during a break, out of the jury’s presence,
the judge dropped Count III from the Information, based on a lack of supporting
evidence. However, the court did not avail this information to the jury.
Failing to give the jury the opportunity to weigh this evidence as to the
victim’s credibility. The court allowed the victim to change portions
of his testimony including the positioning of our bodies in order to support
the other charge, which I was subsequently convicted of.
I believe that there was plenty of time and ample opportunity for the victim
to have been influenced and/or coerced into misrepresenting the facts of his
allegations. By the time the detective interviewed him, he had time
to think about the incident, and in fact, described the incident at least
four times: he first told his brother, then the babysitter, his mother, then
police. This, coupled with at least three additional interviews with
the detective, could not preclude the possibility of fabrication. I
was not aware of the second allegation, that I had rubbed my privates on him,
until my interview with the detective some 13 days after the incident.
There was also testimony that the victim told, at least one other person,
a different account of the incident.
I also believe that the record shows that the judge overstepped his bounds
by questioning the victim. His question, “Now, when he was doing this
to you…”, was leading, biased, argumentative and partial. The manner
in which he phrased his questions may have influenced the jury by establishing
in their minds a pre-determined belief in my guilt. The questioning
of the victim, after the prosecutor’s examination, was elicited to establish
a crucial element, i.e., that I had pulled my shorts down, that the prosecutor
failed to present. The questioning was based on an inference, it was
argumentative, as it was not an established fact that I ever removed my
shorts in the victim’s presence. This error was made even more profound,
as it was heard by the jury a second time during their deliberations.
There is also evidence of misconduct by the prosecutor and judge, in that
their conduct had either separately or combined violated my constitutional
right to a fair trial by shifting the burden of proof, prejudicing the jury
and resulting in a tainted verdict.
The prosecutor did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was
an additional touching for the purpose of sexual gratification, an essential
element, for a conviction for second-degree criminal sexual conduct.
I testified that I did not touch the victim sexually, but that inadvertent
touching may have occurred while I was sleeping. Therefore, being
in this clouded state, I was unable to comprehend my duty to govern m actions
in accordance with duty imposed by law (if in fact there was an inadvertent
touch), I did not act intentionally and cannot be guilty of CSC 2nd, where
I must, as statutorily mandated, intentionally touch the victim. It
has been held that one who kills another in a clouded state, somewhere between
sleep and wakefulness, is not guilty of a crime, Fain v Commonwealth, 78
Ky.193 (1879). Similarly, while I was in a state of sleep, my actions
would be involuntary as I was unable to form the requirement--to act intentionally.
There were other things that happened that aided to an unfair trial.
For example, my trial was held during the month of April, which in Michigan
has been named Sexual Assault Awareness Month. I told my attorney
about this and that there were members of the jury wearing ribbons denoting
their support, but she neglected to tell the judge of my concern for a fair
and impartial trial. Council, provided by the county, was ineffective
in several areas and her performance resulted in my conviction for a crime
that I did not commit.
I need help in obtaining an attorney who would represent me at appeal and
reverse this injustice. My understanding of your program is that you
may be able to help me by setting up a website to either locate an attorney
who could provide services Pro Bono, or to raise funds for an attorney.
Please let me know what you would need from me to set up such a site.
I cannot afford an attorney, and without one I am afraid I may do 15 years
in prison.
Thank you for you help in this request.
Sincerely
Richard Petush
© Copyright 2003 Bruce Richard Petush