Jackson's Legal Theory

Jackson's legal theory

" It is my position that the case for which I am now incarcerated for the last ten years is that unique case in which the government agent (informant) created a crime, recruited individuals, struck a deal with the state, then turned them in! Not only is such conduct outrageous, but it also constitutes entrapment. "
My position is that the state was a manufacturer, rather than a detector, of my alleged crimes. The conviction resulted from the deliberate manufacture of a crime that never would have occurred in the absence of Christophe Jone's prodigious efforts to set me up. Jone's creation of the crime is attributable to the state and denied me the right of due process under the US Constitution Amendment XIV and Wisconsin Constitution Article I Section 8.
In addition such also constitutes entrapment, which is also prohibited. The defendant is protected by the defense of entrapment "if the result of the governmental activity is to implant in an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission." Hampton V United States, 425 US 484, 490,96 S.Ct 1646, 1650 (1976)(quoting Sorrells V. United States, 287 v.s. 435,442,53 SCT 210,212-13(1932).
A defense of "outrageous governmental conduct" or "governmental abuse of power" has never been applied by Wisconsin courts or by the United States Supreme Court. However, the Supreme in United States Vs Russell, 411 US , 423,93, S.CT., 1637 (1973), stated: "We may someday be presented with a situation in which the conduct of the law enforcement agents is so outrageous the due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction.." Id..at 431-32, 92 S.Ct. at1642-43. In Steadman, the Wisconsin Court acknowledged the existence of an outrageous governmental conduct defense and stated that in order for a defendant to properly assert it, he or she must assert that a specific constitutional right has been violated. Steadman, 448 NW 2d at 271 (citing Hampton, 425 US at 490, 96 S.Ct at 1650).
In addition, an outrageous governmental defense requires that the prosecution of a defendant must violate "fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of justice, " mandated by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. " Russell, 411 US at 432, 93 S.Ct at 1643. In other words, outrageous governmental conduct "may arise where government itself was so enmeshed in the criminal activity that prosecution of the defendant could be held repugnant to the American Justice System." Steadmen 448, NW 2nd at 271.
It is my position that the case for which I am now incarcerated for the last ten years is that unique case in which the government agent (informant) created a crime, recruited individuals, struck a deal with the state, then turned them in! Not only is such conduct outrageous, but it also constitutes entrapment.
The United States Supreme Court has held: "the Government could not disown informer and insist it was not responsible for his actions in order to avoid the defense of entrapment. "
An informant is considered a government agent for the purpose of entrapment. Thus he or she would be considered a law enforcement agent! In Sherman v United States, 78 S Ct. 9819i (1958). The Court stated:
" The function of law enforcement is prevention of crime and apprehension of criminals, and does not include the manufacturing of crime, as affecting validity of defense of entrapment."

To Help or for more information, contact
FFUP ( Forum for Understandsing Prisons) at swansol@mwt.net, or 29631 Wild Rose Drive, Blue River, WI 53518

Or write Edward L. Jackson SR 244447
Green Bay Correctional Institution

PO Box 19033

Green Bay. Wio 54307

on to post two and the crime as a hoax

Back to FFUP index

The crime a hoax

note: in second paragraph court investigator agknowleges that DA's files show informant created this hoax of a crime.

Edward Jackson's Pre-sentence Investigation

Page 2

PRESENT OFFENSE
Description of Offense: On 8-23-96, the offender was one of three people found in the back seat of a car parked in the twenty-jsix hundred block of North 16th Street, Milwaukee. The driver was Dwayne Brown, and James Tate was in the front passenger seat of the car. They were found to have weapons on or near them. In the back were the offender, Joseph Davis, and Tyrone Stallings. In the back seat along with the offender and the two others, three glass bottles, each containing gasoline and a wick, were found. The three in the back seat, along with the informant that turned them in, said that they were planning on firebombing a home, and when the people ran out of the houses, the two in the front seats were supposed to shoot them. They said they found out when they were in the car that they were supposed to firebomb several police officers' homes.
According to the DA's files, a police informant had a pending drug case, and he, without the knowledge of the police department, recruited the five people to commit the crime, and then turned them in, hopping to get a lesser sentence on his pending case.
The offender was charged with Conspiracy to Commit First Degree Intentional Homicide (PTAC), Conspiracy to Commit Arson of a Building, (PTAC), and Possession of a Fire Bomb (PTAC). He pled not guilty, but was found guilty of all counts by a jury.

Offender's Version: According to the offender, on the day of the incident, he had been at his girlfriend's house for 1 1/2 hours smoking marijuana with several other people on the porch. They were out of marijuana, and when some people he didn't know drove up, someone said that these people might have some. The others got into the car, and as offender followed them, one of them said to get the bag that was on the porch. He did so, noticing that it smelled like gas, and got into the car. They drove around the corner, and Chris (the informant), who he knows to sell drugs, drove up behind them. The driver of the car took $10.00 from the offender, and went to the side of the house after Chris did. He came back and said that they had to wait for Chris. They were listening to loud music when the police came up behind them, and they were then arrested.
The offender said he thinks that Chris set up the other guys. There wasn't any talk in the car about blowing anything up. He suspected that there was gas in the bag, especially after he was going to light a cigarette, and others said not to, but he never opened it up to know for sure. He said he was only planning on getting some marijuana and was then going to be dropped off on Center Street.
The offender said he didn't make statements to the police about what was said in the car. After being questioned for a while, the officer told him that they'd let him out if he signed the statement, and so the officer wrote it out and he signed it. He said he had gotten some information that the judge

from sentencing transcript:
1 When you review the presentence report,
2 you review the report prepared by Miss Padway,
3 they are interesting. They point to a man who
4 has some needs. They point to a man who as a
5 juvenile- had some 'troubles."" But nothing in his
6 history appeared to point to Mr. Jackson ending .
7 up here.
8 But I also believe there aren't too
9 many people who you can say would end up with
10 these kinds of crimes. These absolutely horrid
11 crimes.
12 The fact that they didn't come to
13 fruition, the fact that Mr. Jackson and his
14 cohorts aren't here being sentenced for a murder
15 is due to the actions of the police and due to a
16 lot of luck.
17 Chris Jones may very well have -- In
18 fact, in the eyes of the State, Chris Jones put
19 this whole scheme into --he created it, he put
20 it into motion.
21 Mr. Jones somehow relied upon the
22 police stopping the scheme. They did. But I
23 think that was shear luck. Something could have
24 happened.
25 The police may not have made it, and
1 indicated, let's get the MF 5-O, meaning Hawaii
2 F-O obviously. That means the intent to get the
3 deputy sheriff.
4 ' Rosen says this morning the cops were
5 watching this at "ail" timesr. Yes" and no. It was
6 a period of time in which that police officer did
7 not have that car totally under surveillance.
8 And if they hadn't gotten over there
9 when they did, it would only have taken them 30
10 seconds to take off and get over to that deputy's
11 house. It wasn't that far away, and the
12 completed crime would have occurred.
13 Jackson says this whole thing was
14 planned by Chris Jones. I don't doubt that
15 that's probably accurate from everything that I
16 heard. That he was doing it simply to give
17 better identification of himself in the drug case
18 that he was facing.
19 I mean the whole thing is bazaar from 1
20 the standpoint of Jones1 positions; that is, in
21 planning this kind of a firebomb of a deputy
22 sheriff's house and ultimately a City of
23 Milwaukee police officer as well, and then going
24 to the police and telling the police of this plot .
25 in order to ingratiate himself with either the ;
23 police, the district attorney or the court.
2 But as Mr. Tiffin said this morning,
3 the for-hire guys went along. One of whom is ,

4 Edward Jackson. You, Mr. Jackson, were not
5 required- to honor the request of Mr.' Jones or
6 Stallings or Davis or anyone else to make and
7 carry a molotov cocktail into that car which was
8 not exactly a small bottle, like quart size if I
9 recall, with the cloth wick soaked in gasoline.
10 There's-only one reason why somebody
11 uses one of those things or makes one of those
12 things or carries one of those things and that's
13 to use it.
14 You just don't go along in a car with
15 that kind of a device to go over to somebody's
16 house to buy marijuana. Or if you are going to
17 -buy marijuana, you are going for a dual purpose. '
18 So the second reason why there's a '
19 difference between Stallings, Davis and this
20 defendant is not only that he was found guilty of
21 three crimes as opposed to one but he also lied
22 in front of the jury.
23 Now, we are prohibited from imposing a
24 sentence against somebody like Mr. Jackson for
25 lying because he wasn't charged with perjury.

on to post three and the district attorney's office

write to Edward Jackson #244447

Green Bay Correctional Institution

PO Box 19033

Green Bay, Wi 54307

or contact FFUP at swansol@mwt.net if you have questions or want to help.

Back to FFUP index

district attorney admits entrapment

Office of the DISTRICT ATTORNEY
November 6,1996
Milwaukee County
Mr. Keith E. Broadnax
Attorney at Law
8131 West Capitol Drive
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53222

RE:State V. Dwayne Brown, F-964320

Dear Mr. Broadnax:
The above-referenced matter has been reviewed by myself together with District Attorney McCann and Deputy District Attorney Jon Reddin. I have been authorized to make the following offer on behalf of the State. Should your client enter a plea of guilty to the charges of Possession of Firearm by a Felon and Carrying a Concealed Weapon, as well as Habitual Criminality, the State would recommend a presentence examination and thereafter that your client be incarcerated for a period of 9 years,, 6 years on the Possession of Firearm by Felon and 3 years on the CCW, Habitual Criminality, the sentences to run consecutive to each other and consecutive to any parole or probation revocation.
Be advised that an investigation is continuing concerning the facts aid circumstances surrounding the incident that led to your client's present situation. If sufficient evidence can be obtained, additional charges may issue against your client.
You are hereby informed that the State believes the conspiracies, which are the subject of the charges against your client, were put into motion by a man named Chris Jones. At the time of these events, Chris Jones was attempting to act as an informer for the Milwaukee Police Department in an effort to mitigate the State's sentencing recommendation in a felony drug case. The information presently available contains strong evidence that Chris Jones, obviously acting without the concurrence of the Milwaukee Police Department, recruited your client together with his co-defendeans and then turned them in to the police to gain favor for himself.
This offer is contingent upon your client remaining crime free between now and the date or plea and/or sentencing, it is further contingent upon receipt from you of your client's acceptance of this offer far enough in advance of any jury trial date so that I may avoid subpoenaing witnesses.

Yours truly,
RICHARD p. KLINKOWlTZ
assistant District Attorney

write to Edward Jackson #244447
Green Bay Correctional Institution
PO Box 19033
Green Bay, Wi 54307

or contact FFUP at swansol@mwt.net if you have questions or want to help.


on to post four to view the plea agreement by the informant who set up the hoax crime
Back to FFUP index

plea agreement by informant

This also, Jackson did not recieve until after his trial. These Court documents of arguments that the informant and person who set up the hoax crime would lose his plea agreement.

CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF WISCONSIN : CRIMINAL DIVISION
FILED nov 5, 1996

STATE OF WISCONSIN, Plaintiff, vs CHRISTOPHER JONES Defendant
Case No. F-962085

LEGAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF RIVEST HEARING
STATEMENT OF CASE AND OFFER OF PROOF
On July 22, 1996, Attorney Curt Rogers notified Assistant District Attorney Karine O'Byme that the defendant would be accepting the State's offer of a plea negotiation. The defendant plead no contest pursuant to a plea negotiation reached with Assistant District Attorney Karine O'Byme pursuant to negotiations outlined in an offer letter to the defendant, dated April 24, 1996. It was a joint request to have the sentencing adjourned and the court ordered a pre-sentence investigation.
Although the offer letter clearly states that the District Attorney's Office will recommend 24 months in the State Prison, the letter goes on to note that the State's position is contingent on "There be no new criminal charges filed against the defendant prior to sentencing." The letter goes on to state that new criminal charges would be considered by the State to be a material and substantial breach of the plea agreement which would release the District Attorney's Office from its obligation to make this recommendation. A copy of the State's offer letter is attached hereto and incorporated by reference and marked for identification as "Exhibit A."
The defendant, defense Attorney Curt Rogers, and Assistant District Attorney Karine O'Byrne, also entered into a separate agreement wherein the defendant agreed to work as a confidential informant and the District Attorney's Office agreed to consider the defendant's work when making the State's recommendation. A copy of this agreement is attached and incorporated by reference and marked for identification as "Exhibit B." Exhibit B provides, among other things, that "Upon the conclusion of the defendant's cooperation with police, the District Attorney's Office will determine what consideration will be given to the defendant for his/her cooperation; the decision as to what benefit the District Attorney's Office will give to the defendant for his/her cooperation is solely within the discretion of the District Attorney's Office."
On August 23, 1996, Attorney Curt Rogers came to the District Attorney's Office in order to modify the terms of the written agreement. At that time, Attorney Rogers informed Assistant District Attorney Karine O'Byrne and Assistant District Attorney Patrick J. Kenney, that the defendant had urgent information regarding a conspiracy to commit a first degree intentional homicide of a member of the City of Milwaukee Police Department. However, Attorney Rogers informed the District Attorney's Office that his client would be willing to cooperate in this investigation and identify co-conspirators only if our office would make an affirmative recommendation that the defendant would not be sentenced to prison. At that time, Assistant District Attorney Patrick J. Kenney stated to Attorney Rogers that if the information
provided by the defendant was corroborated by some independent information, the District Attorney's Office would agree not to recommend prison as part of the disposition in the defendant's case.
Based upon information obtained from the defendant, several individuals were arrested on August 23, 1996, for conspiracy to commit first degree intentional homicide of a City of Milwaukee police officer. As a result of the investigation, five separate individuals were charged with a variety of criminal offenses. Three defendants confessed to taking part in the conspiracy. However, investigating officers determined that the defendants who admitted their involvement identified the defendant as the person who initiated the conspiracy.
For the purpose of this motion, Det. Octavio Delgado executed an affidavit, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, and marked for identification as "Exhibit C." The next several paragraphs will attempt to summarize Det. Delgado's affidavit and its attachments.
As a result of the arrests on August 23, 1996, three separate individuals were charged with Conspiracy to Commit First Degree Intentional Homicide and Conspiracy to Commit Arson of a Building. This matter is pending in Circuit Court Case No. F-964321 and Det. Delgado is the complaining witness. The three defendants are Tyrone Stallings, Joseph Davis, and Edward Jackson. Each of the defendants gave statements reflecting that Christopher Jones initiated the conspiracy. Additionally, an individual by the name of Dwayne Brown was also arrested with the co-conspirators. Brown is charged with Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, in F-964320. Brown's statement is also attached to Det. Delgado's affidavit and Brown's statement reflects that he was present because he had received a telephone call from Christopher Jones and during the conversation, Christopher Jones asked Brown to sell him a 9mm pistol.
On October 1, 1996, a police officer working in an undercover capacity, notified the Gang Crimes Unit that the officer believed that the undercover officer had purchased marijuana from the defendant, Christopher Jones. Christopher Jones was arrested by members of the Gang Crimes Unit and questioned regarding the alleged sale of marijuana and his involvement in the conspiracy to commit homicide. Although the defendant denied being involved in the homicide conspiracy, the defendant admitted that he was a marijuana dealer. According to Delgado's affidavit, the defendant stated that on the night the suspects were arrested for conspiracy to commit homicide, the defendant had ten pounds of marijuana in his home. During the defendant's October 1, 1996 interview, the defendant stated that he presently had a pound of marijuana in his home. However, the defendant then changed his statement and told Officer Delgado that the pound of marijuana was in a friend's house located at 2325 North 15th Street. After receiving this information, members of the Gang Crimes Unit did a "knock and talk" at the residence, located at 2325 North 15th Street, and were permitted to search the residence. During the search of the residence, officers recovered 404.4 grams (approximately 14-1/2 ounces) of marijuana from the residence. The defendant was released from custody on October 1, 1996, because the undercover officer was unable to identify the defendant as the person from whom the officer had purchased marijuana.
On October 7, 1996, the defendant appeared before this court for sentencing. At that time, the State argued that the defendant had materially breached his plea agreement and requested a "Rivest" hearing to decide the issue. The defendant was remanded and a hearing was scheduled for November 11, 1996.
The defendant provided an additional statement to police on October 9, 1996, while in custody and in the presence of his new attorney, Alan Eisenberg. The defendant reasserted he was not involved in the conspiracy. However, the defendant again acknowledged that he had a large quantity of marijuana in his house on August 23, 1996. This report is also attached to Det. Delgado's affidavit.
ISSUE
Has the defendant materially breached his plea negotiation and is the State relieved from recommending 24 months in the Wisconsin State Prison?
ARGUMENT
THE DEFENDANT HAS MATERIALLY BREACHED HIS PLEA NEGOTIATION WITH THE STATE OF WISCONSIN BY COMMITTING NEW CRIMINAL OFFENSES AND THE STATE SHOULD BE RELIEVED FROM RECOMMENDING 24 MONTHS IN THE WISCONSIN STATE PRISON AT THE DEFENDANT'S SENTENCING.
The State is requesting that the court release the State from its obligation under the plea agreement to recommend that the defendant serve a sentence of 24 months in the Wisconsin State Prison. State v. Rivest. 106 Wis.2d 406 (1982) requires that when the State seeks release from its obligations under a plea agreement because of an alleged breach of the agreement by the defendant, an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine if there was a breach and if that breach was sufficiently material to release the State from its obligations under the agreement. Also see State v. Toliver. 187 Wis.2d 346 (Ct. App. 1994). The burden of proof is on the State to show by clear and convincing evidence that not only a breach occurred, but also that it was material and substantial. State v. Jorgenson. 137 Wis.2d 163, 168 (Ct. App. 1987).
In State v. Rivest. supra, the defendant admitted his participation in a robbery of a gas station owner but denied any involvement in his subsequent murder. The State and Rivest entered into a plea agreement, during which the defendant agreed to plead guilty to a charge of robbery and testify against the accomplice who Rivest accused of murdering the gas station owner. Prior to his trial, Rivest gave a conflicting statement regarding his involvement in the robbery and homicide. Therefore, the district attorney decided not to call Rivest as a witness against the accomplice at trial and charged Rivest with First Degree Murder. The defendant Filed a motion to bar his prosecution for First Degree Murder based upon the earlier plea negotiation. After hearings and arguments, the trial court entered an order setting aside the plea agreement and guilty plea to the robbery charge and authorized the State to continue the prosecution of the homicide complaint. The trial court held that the defendant had fraudulently induced the State to enter into the plea agreement through his false and misleading statements and materially breached the agreement by giving false testimony at his accomplice's preliminary hearing.
Initially, the Supreme Court determined that it was appropriate to have a hearing before the trial court to address the issue: "By analogy to contract law, we conclude the a plea agreement may be vacated where a material and substantial breach of the plea agreement has been proved. To allow a defendant to claim the benefit of an agreement where he, himself, is in default, offends fundamental concepts of honesty, fair play and justice." Id at 414.
The Court went on to establish that the burden of proof is on the party seeking release from the agreement: "We further hold that the constitutional due process requirements of decency and fairness are satisfied where the burden is placed upon the party seeking to vacate the agreement to establish both a breach, and that the breach is sufficiently material to warrant releasing the party from its promises (prosecution or defense) before the same judge who accepted the plea, whenever possible." Id at 414.
Although Rivest argued that his inconsistent statements were not a sufficient breach of the plea agreement to justify the vacation of the agreement, the Supreme Court disagreed, "It is ludicrous for the defendant to argue that his penurious testimony was anything less than a grave and material breach of the plea agreement." Id at 416. In the instant case, the defendant plead guilty pursuant to a plea negotiation reached with Assistant District Attorney Karine O'Byme pursuant to negotiations outlined in an offer letter to the defendant, dated April 24, 1996. Although the offer letter clearly states that the District Attorney's Office will recommend 24 months in the Wisconsin State Prison, the letter goes on to state that the State's position is contingent on "There be no new criminal charges filed against the defendant prior to sentencing." The offer letter goes on to state that the new charges would
be considered by the State to be a material and substantial breach of the plea agreement which would release the District Attorney's Office from its obligation to make this recommendation.
The State respectfully submits that the offer letter (Exhibit A) should be reviewed by the court to determine the conditions of the plea negotiation. In the past, Wisconsin appellate courts have consistently found that letters between the parties are convincing evidence of the terms of an agreement. State v. Bangert. 131 Wis.2d 246, 289 (1986); State v. Windom. 169 Wis.2d 341, 349 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Toliver. 187 Wis.2d 346, 356 (Ct. App. 1994).
The facts in this case are substantially identical to the facts presented in State v. Toliver, supra, (Ct. App. 1994). Toliver and Dangelo Banks were suspected of committing sexual assaults. Toliver entered into a plea agreement with the State and entered a guilty plea to two counts of First Degree Sexual Assault. In exchange for the guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss two other charges against the defendant and make a specific sentencing recommendation. Additionally, the defendant agreed to testify against co-defendant Dangelo Banks. However, at Banks' trial, Toliver refused to testify. The agreement specifically provided that the State would be free to recommend any penalty if the defendant violated the terms of the agreement. At sentencing, the State recommended a substantial consecutive prison sentence on the two charges of First Degree Sexual Assault for which the defendant had already plead guilty. Toliver argued that he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. He argued that his failure to testify against Banks rendered the plea agreement null and void.
The Court of Appeals disagreed, "The State did not breach the agreement, Toliver did.
The State was following the sanction proviso of paragraph ten when it gave its sentencing
recommendation. Thus, to allow Toliver to claim the benefit of a new sentencing hearing when he breached the agreement offends the fundamental concepts of Rivest." Id at 357-358.
In the case before the court, the defendant solicited individuals to commit the homicide of a City of Milwaukee police officer in order to solve the crime and later take credit for the arrests of the co-conspirators. Additionally, the defendant has admitted to possessing and distributing large quantities of marijuana while out on bail and awaiting sentencing in this case. Therefore, the defendant has materially and substantially breached the agreement by committing substantial violations of the law.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the State respectfully requests that the court find that the defendant materially and substantially breached the plea agreement and the State is released from its obligation to recommend 24 months in the Wisconsin State Prison.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 4th day of November, 1996.
Respectfully submitted,
PATRICK J. KENNEY ' Assistant District Attorney State Bar Number 102230 GC
821 W. State Street, Room 208
Milwaukee, WI 53233
(414)278-5183

To Help or for more information, contact
FFUP ( Forum for Understanding Prisons) at swansol@mwt.net, or 29631 Wild Rose Drive, Blue River, WI 53518

or write to Edward Jackson #244447
Green Bay Correctional Institution
PO Box 19033
Green Bay, Wi 54307



on to post five and police reports

Back to FFUP index

Two Police documents in Edward Jackson case

TWO Milwaukee Police Department Reports

#1(scan of Document submitted by Det. Frank Velasquez 8/23,1996)

MILWAUKEE POLICE DEPARTMENT
VICE CONTROL DIVISION FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 1996
IN THE MATTER OF; POSSIBLE FIRE BOMBING OF MILWAUKEE POLICE
OFFICER'S AND MILWAUKEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S RESIDENCE
TO: EDWARD M. STENZEL CAPTAIN OF POLICE
SIR:
On 8-23-96, at approximately 12:33 pm, I, Detective Frank Velasquez, did receive information from a confidential informant via their attorney that this confidential informant had information regarding the possible fire bombing of a Milwaukee Police Officer's home and a Milwaukee County Sheriff's Deputy's home.
The confidential informant related that this bombing would occur by the use of Molatov Cocktails. Information was also received that guns had arrived from out-of-town and that these guns would be used to protect the actors involved in the potential fire bombing. The informant relayed, that this bombing would be done in retaliation of a recent police fatal shooting that occurred at 19th and Meinacke Street.
At this time, officers are unable to determine the geographical area in which this bombing may occur.
Respectfully submitted,
/{,
DET. FRANK VELASQUE VICE CONTROL DIVISION FV:smc

#2 Supplementary report by Velasquez
6 Pages, NOTE:
Informant does not mention nor describe Edward Jackson as being involcved in this case.
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT MILWAUKEE POLICE DEPARTMENT
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT HOMICIDE/ARSON 08-23-96
On August 23, 1996, at approximately 12:30 P.M.,- I, Det. Frank A. VELASQUEZ, was contacted by the Milwaukee County- District Attorney's office and informed that a confidential informant (from here on in referred to as the "C.I.") through its Legal Attorney, wished to lend information to the Milwaukee Police Department regarding the possible firebombing of a Milwaukee Police Department Officer and a Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department Officer's residence. This was to be done by the use of Molotov cocktails and weapons were to be used to also shoot the potential victims.
This act would be in retaliation for the fatal shooting by police that occurred at the 1900 block of W. Meinecke St.
This attorney did come to the Vice Control Division on 8-23-96;and verify this information to me, Det. VELASQUEZ.Arrangements were then made to meet with the "C.I.".
At approximately 3:00 P.M., on 8-23-96, I, Det. VELASQUEZ, along with Det. Barry J. DEBRASKA, Jr., did meet and speak with
this "C.I.",who related the following.
On 8-23-96, the "C.I." and five other individuals were going to firebomb 2-homes on the Northside of Milwaukee. These homes belong to law enforcement officers. The "C.I." related that earlier in the week, 12-Mac 11, semi-automatic weapons were purchased and brought to Milwaukee, WI., from Newton, Mississippi, by an individual by the name of Paul JAMES. These weapons were to be used in addition to the firebombing of the officer's homes. The "C.I." related that three of the actors were to ride in one
vehicle, and the other three in the 2nd vehicle. The first vehicle
would drive up to the house. Two of the individuals would exit the
vehicle, run up to the house, and proceed to throw a Molotov
cocktail at the front porch, side of the house, and rear porch, and then continue to run past the house. Finally, to be picked up again by the first vehicle. The 2nd vehicle with the other
actors would be waiting across the street from that residence, and watch to see if anyone would come out of that burning building, or at the very least, investigate the noise that would come from the bottles being thrown against the house. When the occupants would appear on the porch area, they would then be shot by two of the actors, while the 3rd would drive off. These actors would be using the automatic weapons that were purchased from Newton, Mississippi.
The suspects would then drive off and meet at a tavern located
at 17th & Wright, which is "John's Tavern", where they would discuss the plans for the 2nd bombing, and decide if it was to take place at all depending on the police saturation in the area of the first bombing.
If the suspects had decided that the 2nd bombing was to go on as scheduled, the suspects would walk to the 2nd location and duplicate the first bombing. The only difference would be that the suspects would use no vehicle and be on foot. After the completion of the 2nd bombing,- the suspects would blend and fade into "the crowd during police response to the 2nd bombing.
If the 2nd bombing did not occur on the same night as the first bombing, it would take place the following night.
This offense was to take place, at approximately 12:00 or 12:30 A.M., due to the fact that Police Department personnel had a shift change, and this would delay police response to the bombings.
After the "C.I." presented the plans for the bombings, the "C.I." then described the 6-suspects as /being:
#1. B/M, "Tall James", 26-yoa., 6'7" tall, 240 Ibs.,. med. build, black hair, short tight afro, mustache, thin goatee
#2. B/M, "T.Y.", possibly "Tyrone", 21-yoa., 6'1" tall, 170 Ibs., muscular build, med. black short afro hair, rides a blue Trek 900 bicycle. .
#3. B/M, "Tim", 23 yoa,6'tall, 150 lbs.,thin build;long permed hair, mustache, goatee. This suspect was recently released
from the Sturtevant Correctional Facility approximately 2 weeks ago.
#4., B/M, Dwayne BROWN, also known as "Yellow Boy" , B/M, 20's, light skin, 6'2" tall, 160 Ibs., thin build, long braids. This suspect drives a black Buick LeSabre, 1979 to 1980. This subject also has an acne complexion. This individual also is selling the Mac 11. Up to this date he has 3-4 left, selling them anywhere from $600.00 to $1,000.00 apiece.
#5., B/M, Junior BROOKS , possible first name of William, 38-yoa., 5'10" tall, heavy build, 240 Ibs., short nappy hair, goatee, mustache. This subject has a front gold tooth, and drives a 1994,4 -door, Ford Explorer, green in color w/brown interior . This subject was armed with a .9mm gun underneath his car seat. This suspect is supposedly on Federal Parole for "delivery, of 10-kilograms of cocaine
#6., Chris Jones, 20 yoa.,150 lbs.,black hair,hangs in the area of 17th & Meinecke.
It should be noted that the "C.I." did indicate that no/one really stays at any particular area of this area, bounded by 16th & Wright to 19th & Meinecke, -north and south, east and west. What these individuals do is meet in the (hood), gather together, and inform each other as to what's going on. These subjects then disburse from this area until they meet in the "hood" again on a daily basis to exchange information.
Det's VELASQUEZ and DEBRASKA, then took this "C.I." to the area of the possible bombing locations to determine the correct addresses and ascertain the identity of the possible victims, which officers did obtain.
The vehicle to be used in the commission of these crimes, was Dwayne BROWN'S black Buick LeSabre, and a brown van of which the .
side doors open for easy exiting and re-entering the vehicle once these actors commit this crime. The Buick was to carry the "shooter's", "Tall James", Junior BROOKS, Dwayne BROWN. The brown van was to contain the people throwing the Molotov cocktails which consisted of "Ty", "Chris", and "Tim".
The 1st bombing was to occur at 2400/02 (duplex) N. 22nd St., which is the home of a Milwaukee Police Officer.
The 2nd bombing was to occur at 2436 N. 14th St., which is the home of the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Deputy.
There was also to be a 3rd bombing located at 2672 N. Palmer St., the suspects thinking that a police officer also lived at this location, due to the fact there was an unmarked vehicle parked in front of this residence. As officers could determine, this vehicle was possibly obtained through an auction. At this time there is no indication of any law enforcement officer living at 2672 N. Palmer St.
This 3rd incident was to occur on 8-26-96.
At the "conclusion of information obtained, this information was then passed on to supervisors who then made a determination as to what actions were to follow after this.
After the arrest of the individual's named and others, a debriefing was conducted, with the "C.I.". The "C.I." indicated to me; VELASQUEZ, that he went to the area of 17th & Wright, which is considered the "hood". The individual by the name of "Ty" asked if it was "still on", which he meant to be the bombing. "Ty" related that he had everything with him, which consisted of gas and bottles. The individual's by the name of "Dwayne"and"Tall James", did pull up in a vehicle, to the area of 17th & Wright, and other subjects then "jumped into this "Dwayne's" car. Subjects drove this vehicle around the block and returned to the area of 17th & Wright, and then picked up an individual by the name of "Black" One of the individuals exited black Buick and entered his own Buick vehicle. This subject then drove to his father's house, which is located somewhere in the area of N. 16th St. This individual is believed to have changed clothes and then meet up with the suspects at a later time.
"Tall James" and "Dwayne" were the shooters for this particular incident this night, "Black" and "Ty" were to throw the Molotov cocktails. An individual by the name of "Tim" was supposed to bring along some more Molotov cocktails, but failed to show at the scene . The suspect was seen driving through the alleys around the area of 17th & Wright, and related to the other suspects that he was going to see his aunt . The indiv-idual by the name of "Black" stated he was also rolling with the 'group.This information was overheard by the "CI.".
Report per: Det. Frank A. VELASQUEZ.

REPORTING-OFFICER 2 DST. PRANK A. VELASQUEZ PAYROLL # 56345

write to Edward Jackson #244447
Green Bay Correctional Institution
PO Box 19033
Green Bay, Wi 54307

or contact FFUP at swansol@mwt.net if you have questions or want to help.
on to post six and more police reports

More police reports show innocence

NOTE
These police reports show Jackson was never at house where planning supposedly took place. Jackson did not see these reports until after the trial. Jackson's words: Statements again show I was not involved in hoax and was not to pay anyone money to commit the crime as Joseph Davis (Black) testified to at my trial. Also, I was arrested 8-23-96 shortly before midnoght. Yet witness statement names everyone involved meeting at her apartment onb 8-23-06 shortly before midnight, yet I was not there.
On 10-09-96, at 4:30pm, I, Det. Octavio Delgado received follow up investigation regarding this incident.

on 10-09-96, at 9:00pm, at 3223 N Buffum, Det. Delgado and PO Dan Thompson interview Telecia JOHNSON, B/F, dob: 1-16-78, of 3223 N Buffum, phone #265-9297 regarding this incident. It should be noted that Johnson was reluctantly giving the following information. Johnson related she is the current girlfriend of Tyrone Stallings and has been for approximately three or four months. Johnson states this past Tuesday, 10-8-96, Stallings had called from the County Jail. Johnson states Stallings advised her that Junior Brooks(William Brooks) had just deposited $1,000.00 dollars in his jail account and was also going to give her $1,000.00 dollars. Johnson states Brooks then called her and told her that he would be dropping off the $1,000.00 dollars today, 10-9-96, and that she was to give $500.00 dollars to Stalling sister, unknown name. Johnson states Brooks did give her his phone number, but refused to give it to me. Johnson did relate that Brooks was involved in large sales of narcotics and was attempted to pay off some people involved in this offense, so that they will not implicate him. Johnson stated she did not know who Brooks was to pay off. Johnson then stated several weeks before this whole incident occurred she over heard Brooks stating " we're going to do the move for some money". Johnson stated she did not know what exactly Brook's meant. Johnson then stated she was going to talk to Attorney Allen Eisenberg in the morning, 10-10-96, and give him all the information she had regarding Stallings and Brooks. Johnson states she is willing to talk with other Detectives and Allan Eisenberg in the morning. Johnson further related the only person she knows from this incident is Tyrone Stallings and Black.
On 10-15-96, at 6:20pm, at 3223 N Buffum st, I, Det. Octavio Delgado and Sgt. Michael Stroessner re-interviewed Telecia Johnson, B/F, dob: 1-16-78, of 3223 N Buffum, phone #265-9297 regarding this offense.
Johnson related three or four days before this incident occurred (8-23-96) in the area of N 24th st, between W Brown st and W. Galena st, between 2:00pm and 3:00pm, she went to a house at this location to meet her boyfriend Tyrone Stallings, aka T-Y,of five months. Johnson states she did not know who actually lived at this residence. Johnson states she just visited Stallings. Johnson states while at this residence for approximately one hour, a person she knows as Junior(William E. Brooks) came over for approximately fifteen minutes. Johnson states Junior came over in a green 4 door Blazer auto. Johnson states it was here that she heard Junior states that he had a move going down for some money. Johnson states she did not know what this meant. Johnson states Stallings then told her he was getting a lot of money for this move.
Johnson further stated approximately two or three weeks ago Stallings had called her from the Criminal Justice Facility. Johnson states that Junior was going to drop off $1,000.00 dollars at her house and she was to give it to his (Stallings) attorney. Johnson states that evening Junior did stop at her house and gave her $1,000.00 dollars for Stallings attorney. Johnson states she never gave the money to Stallings attorney and states she just kept the money. Johnson stated this was the first time she had ever met Junior.
Johnson further states last Tuesday, 10-8-96,at 2:00pm, Junior had called her and advised her that he had put $250.00 dollars into Stallings jail account. Johnson states Junior then gave her his pager number #981-0280. Johnson stated sometime later she paged Junior and asked for some money. Johnson states Junior agreed to give her some money and advised her that a girl would bring the money over. Johnson states on 10-8-96, between 2:30pm and 3:00pm, a girl that she did not know arrived at her residence and gave her $500.00 dollars. Johnson states she kept $250.00 dollars and gave $250.00 to Stalling's sister-Glendora who live in the area of N 17th and W Wright st, no phone.
Johnson stated approximately four days after Stallings was arrested for this offense he had called her from the Criminal Justice Facility. Johnson states, at this time, Stallings advised her that he thought Chris(Chris Jones) was a snitch and that he was going to try and set him up with the police. Johnson states Stalling did not state he was going to kill Chris, but was only going to set him up with the Police.
At this time, I, Det. Delgado showed Johnson the following Criminal Justice Facility Booking photos #650691393 (Timothy T. Dembry) , #688157293 (James Tate) , #651377293 (Dwayne Brown) , #607155634 {Christopher Jones) , #627710393 (Edward Jackson) , #633038293 (Joseph Davis) , #648240393 ( Tyrone Stallings) and Milwaukee Police Department BofI photo #128414 (William Brooks) . Johnson states she only knew #648240393 as Tyrone Stallings her boyfriend of five months and #633038293 as the person they call Black. Johnson stated she did not know the rest of the individuals in the photographs. Johnson states she has known Black (Joseph Davis) as Stallings friend and has only talked to him a few times over the last five months. Johnson states she really doesn't know Black.
Johnson further stated she will refuse to testify and refused to wear any kind of wire on her person. Johnson states she will not cooperate further with this investigation. Johnson did state her statement was truthful even though there were inconsistency in her last several statements.
On 10-15-96, at 7:lOpm, at 3111 W Wisconsin Ave,Allen D Eisenberg Attorney At Law Office, Det. Delgado and Sgt. Stroessner met with Attorney Alan D. Eisenberg and a female who identified herself as Kiesha L. Brown, per Attorney Eisenberg regarding this incident .
At this time, I, Det. Delgado interviewed Kiesha LaTrice Brown, B/F, dob: 9-4-77, cf 1150 N 20th st #504, phone #343-9127. It should be noted that Brown could not produce any identification at this time. Brown related several days ago she met a women named Kisha in the neighborhood who had informed her that Chris Jones had been arrested and that the Police were going to charge him with this incident, because all the other people involved in this incident are saying they don't know a person named Junior. Brown states she knew this was not true, so she went to Chris Jones father house and spoke with his father. Brown stated Chris Jones father told her to contact Alan Eisenberg.
Brown related this past July in the area of N 14th st and W. State st, she had met the following persons: Tall James, Junior, and Dwayne Brown. Brown states her girlfriend had known Tall James and that is how she met these men. Brown states Tall James, Dwayne Brown and Junior had a drug house above a store and bar on N 14th st and W State st. Brown states they sold crack cocaine in $10.00 dollar quantities from this drug house. Brown states one day while at the drug house on N 14th and W State st, Junior had asked her to go with him for a ride, so she did. Brown states she rode with Junior in his green Ford Explorer to the area of N Greenbay and W Capital area to a house. Brown states Junior entered a house and then returned with a plastic sandwich baggie containing crack cocaine. Brown states they then returned to the drug house on N 14th st and W States st, where Junior gave Dwayne Brown the drugs. Brown stated at the end of July Junior had given her some money to get an apartment at 2453 N 17th st #4. Brown stated she agreed to move out from her parent home and move into this new apartment on August 5, 1996. Brown stated Junior, Chris Jones, Dwayne Brown, and Tall James then immediately started to sell marijuana from her apartment. Brown stated they sold $5.00 dollar quantities and 1/4 ounce baggies of marijuana from her apartment.
I, Det. Delgado then showed Brown the following Criminal Justice Facility Booking photos: #650691393 (Timothy T. Dembry),# 688157293 (JamesTate) ,#651377293 (DwayneBrown) ,#607155634 (Christopher Jones) ,#627710393 (Edward Jackson) , #633038293 (JosephDavis) ,#648240393 (Tyrone Stallings) , and Milwaukee Police Department Bof I booking photo #128414 (William Brooks). Brown stated she has known #128414 as Junior her boyfriend of two weeks and has known him from the drug house on N 14th and W State st and 2453 N 17th #4 since July of 1996. Brown states she has known #688157293 -Tall James, #651377293 -Dwayne Brown, and #607155634 -Chris from the drug house on N 14th and W State st and at 2453 N 17th st since July of 1996. Brown stated she has known #650691393 (Tim Dembry) to smoke marijuana in her apartment with the guys since August of 1996. Brown states she does not know #627710393 (Edward Jackson).Brown stated she has known #633038293 (Joseph Davis) and 64824O393( Tyrone Stallings) from her drug house apartment. Brown states these two individuals would buy marijuana from the guys in her apartment.
Brown further stated on Thursday (8-22-96)and on Friday (8-23-96)in her apartment, 2453 N 17th #4, in the evening hours, she had seen Tall James (James Tate),Dwayne Brown, Junior(William Brooks),Chris Jones, and the individual she had identified from the criminal Justice Facility Booking Photos, Tyrone Stallings and Joseph Davis. Brown stated all of these men were talking among themselves. Brown stated she heard them talking about getting paid their money; Brown stated she heard Stallings state if Junior didn't pay them that Chris would pay them. Brown further state she observed Tall James and Dwayne Brown wiping several gold color bullets with a cloth in her apartment. Brown stated this was a truthful statement,however, she did not wish to testify in court .

To Help or for more information, contact
FFUP ( Forum for Understansing Prisons) at swansol@mwt.net, or 29631 Wild Rose Drive, Blue River, WI 53518

Or write Edward L. Jackson SR 244447
Green Bay Correctional Institution

PO Box 19033

Green Bay, WI 53407

on to post seven and request for transcript and response

Back to FFUP index

open records request for informants interview

Note:"open records request: I discovered after trial tha a secret recording was made of informant and sought it's contents, however police "claim "tape was destroyed.

Mr. Edward L Jackson SR. #244447
Green Bay Correctional Institution
Post Office Box 19033
Green Bay, WI 54307
June 20, 2005

Ms. Nanette Hegarty
Milwaukee Chief of Police
Police Administration Bldg.
749 W. State Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin -53233-

RE: Case No. F-964321, Milwaukee Police Department Inventory No, 1599004.
Dear Ms. Hegarty:
I am a defendant/Appealle in the above mentioned case. I write to you today with the hopes that you will forward a copy of a transcribed conversation between a Timothy Dembry and Christopher Jones. This conversation was recorded as a follow-up by a Det. Larry Devalkenaere in regards to the case for which I am a Coconspirator.
The contents of this discussion was never revealed to myself nor my trial counsel. Recently I've combed through both the discovery I received before trial and recent discovery I obtained since my conviction. In this endeavor I came across an incident report which refers to this recording and a property inventory sheet listing (1) Micro tape. I now would ask that you release a copy of the tape or alternatively a transcript of it's contents to myself at the above listed address.
Thank you for your time and attention in this matter !
Respectfully Yours,
Edward L. Jackson Sr.



January 4, 2006
Mr. Edward Jackson Sr. # 244447
Green Bay Correctional Institution
P.O. Box19033 Green Bay, Wl 54307

Re: Case # F- 964321 , Milwaukee Police Department Inventory No. 1599004

Dear Mr. Jackson:

This is in response to your request for information pursuant to the Wisconsin Open Records Law. In your letter dated June 20, 2005, (copy attached) you requested the following

"...a copy of a transcribed conversation between a Timothy Dembry and Christopher Jones. ... I now would ask that you release a copy of the tape or alternatively a transcript of it's contents."

Please be advised that based upon the information provided, a check of the relevant files of the Milwaukee Police Department by the Property Control Section indicates that the tape as cited in MPD Property Inventory #1599004 was destroyed on 03-26-98, as indicated on the attached computer generated Property Disposition Sheet (see highlighted).
Sincerely,
NANNETTE H. HEGERTY CHIEF OF POLICE
ANTHONY R. HENDRICKS CAPTAIN OF POLICE
Police Administration Building, 749 West State Street, Post Office Box 531, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201-0531 (414) 933-4444
Web Site: http://www.milwaukeepolice.o/

To Help or for more information, contact

FFUP ( Forum for Understansing Prisons) at swansol@mwt.net, or 29631 Wild Rose Drive, Blue River, WI 53518

write to Edward Jackson #244447
Green Bay Correctional Institution
PO Box 19033
Green Bay, Wi 54307


on to post eight and another police report with no Jackson
Back to FFUP index

where's Jackson? Another police report

Note for Edward Jackson: Informant informed the police that there would be 4 individuals inside the vehicle, yet I was the 5th individual arrested inside the vehicle clearly showing informant had no idea of me as I had no part of the hoax, to his knowlege.

Incident Number 96-237303
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
ON SATURDAY, AT ABOUT 2:30 A.M., I, DETECTIVE DENNIS GARDNER WAS INSTRUCTED BY LT. WILLIAM HAMMERLING TO WRITE THIS REPORT REGARDING MY INVOLVEMENT AND WHAT TRANSPIRED WHILE I WAS CONDUCT­ING A SURVEILLANCE ON A TAVERN ENTITLED "JOHN'S TAP", LOCATED AT 1635 WEST WRIGHT STREET.
ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 1996 AT ABOUT 9:45 P.M., I, DETECTIVE GARDNER, ACCOMPANIED BY POLICE OFFICER BRIDGETT MCCLAIN DROVE TO THE 1800 BLOCK OF WEST WRIGHT STREET WHERE WE TOOK A POSITION ON SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET, FACING EASTERLY SO THAT WE COULD SURVEILLED THE ABOVE MENTIONED TAVERN. WHILE WATCHING THE TAVERN WE NOTICED THAT THE C.I.'S VEHICLE WAS PARKED ON 17TH STREET, ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET AND FACING IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION. AT APPROXIMATELY 11:50 P.M., THE C.I. WHO HAD BEEN INSIDE THE -TAVERN EXITS THE TAVERN AND ENTERS IT'S VEHICLE. UPON ENTERING IT'S VEHICLE THE C.I. BACKS ONTO WEST WRIGHT STREET AND PROCEEDS EASTBOUND ON WEST WRIGHT TO NORTH 16TH STREET. ON 16TH STREET THE C.I. PROCEEDS NORTH AND PARK IT'S VEHICLE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE STREET AT APPROXIMATELY 2644 NORTH 16TH STREET. AS I DRIVE BY THE C.I. IT AN I MAKE EYE CONTACT AND IT ENTERS A HOUSE AT 2621 NORTH 16TH STREET VIA THE FRONT ENTRANCE DOOR. I THEN DRIVE BACK TO THE LOCATION WHERE I WAS INITIALLY AND PARKED MY VEHICLE. AT APPROXIMATELY 11:53 P.M. THE C.I. CALLS ME ON MY CAR PHONE INFORMING ME THAT THE GUYS WERE READY TO DO THE JOB, AND THEY WERE ALL PARKED IN FRONT OF IT'S HOUSE DIRECTLY BEHIND IT'S VEHICLE WITH FOUR OCCUPANTS^ ALL BLACK MALES. THE C.I. WENT ON TO DESCRIBED THE SUSPECTS VEHICLE AS A BLACK BUICK LASABRE, FOUR
DOOR. THE C.I. ALSO INFORMED ME THAT IT HAD OBSERVED TWO 9MM PISTOLS, ONE MAK 11 PISTOL, AND TWO MOLQTOV COCKTAILS INSIDE THE VEHICLE THAT THE SUSPECTS OCCUPIED.
IMMEDIATELY AFTER RECEIVING THIS INFORMATION I CONTACTED LT. HAMMERLING AND CONVEYED ALL OF WHAT THE C.I. TOLD ME TO HIM. AFTERING CONVEYING THE ABOVE TO LT. HAMMERLING I DROVE PAST THE SUSPECT'S VEHICLE AND OBTAINED THE VEHICLE'S LICENSE PLATE. THE VEHICLE HAD A WISCONSIN LICENSE PLATE NUMBER OF PXM470 WHICH I ALSO GAVE LT. HAMMERLING. SHORTLY AFTER THE ABOVE OCCURRED THE SUSPECTS WERE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AT ABOUT 2610 NORTH 16TH STREET.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DETECTIVE DENNIS GARDNER VICE CONTROL DIVISION

write to Edward Jackson #244447
Green Bay Correctional Institution
PO Box 19033
Green Bay, Wi 54307

or contact FFUP at swansol@mwt.net if you have questions or want to help.

on to post nine and the trial transcripts

Trial Transcripts:

NOTE: Joseph Davis (Black) testifies for state against myself and testifies that I was to pay for murders and recruited everyone.
1 A-F-T-E-R-N-0-O-N P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
2 THE COURT: Since the defendant has
3 rested we'll have rebuttal by the State.
4 MS. KRAFT: The State would call Joseph
5 Davis. He's in the back.
6 JOSEPH DAVIS, called as a witness
7 herein, being first duly sworn, was examined and
8 testified as follows:
9 THE CLERK: State your full name for
10 the record and spell your first and last name,
11 please.
12 THE WITNESS: Joseph Davis,
13 J-o-s-e-p-h, D-a-v-i-s.
14 DIRECT EXAMINATION
15 BY MS. KRAFT:
16 Q Mr. Davis, how old are you?
17 A Eighteen.
18 Q Do you have a nickname?
19 A Yes.
20 Q What do people call you?
21 A Black.
22 Q Can you tell me whether or not you know the
23 defendant in this case, Edward Jackson?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Do you see the Edward Jackson you know in court
1 today?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Tell us where he's sitting and what he's wearing,
4 please.
5 A He's sitting over there.
6 Q What's he wearing?
7 A Red and blue Nike shirt.
8 MS. KRAFT: I would ask the record
9 reflect the identification of Edward Jackson by
10 this witness.
11 THE COURT: The record will so
12 reflect.
13 MS. KRAFT:
14 Q Mr. Davis, did you know Mr. Jackson in August of
15 1993?
16 A '93?
17 Q August of 1996, this past August?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Did you know Mr. Jackson by some nickname?
20 A Yes.
21 Q What nickname did you call Mr. Jackson in August
22 of 1996?
23 A Goldy.
24 Q Goldy. Can you tell me -- I want to direct your
25 attention back to the late evening hours of
78
1 August 23rd of 1996 shortly before midnight.
2 Were you arrested that night?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Where were you when you were arrested?
5 A On 16th and Clarke.
6 Q Were you in a vehicle?
7 A Yes.
8 Q What kind of vehicle was that?
9 A Black -- I forgot what kind of car it was.
10 Q Was it a Buick LeSabre?
11 A Yes, I think so.
12 Q Were there other people in the car with you when
13 you were arrested?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Do you know a man named Duane Brown?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Was he in the car?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Where in the car was he at the time that you were
20 arrested?
21 A Where was he?
22 Q Yeah. Where was he sitting in the car?
23 A In the front seat.
24 Q Behind the driver's seat or in the passenger
25 seat?
79
1 A The driver's seat.
2 Q Do you know a man named James Tate?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Was he in the car with you when you were arrested
5 on August 23rd of 1996?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Where was he sitting in that car?
8 A In the front seat on the passenger's side.
9 Q Do you know a man named Tyrone Stallings?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Where was he in the car when you were arrested on
12 August 23rd or of 1996?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Where was he sitting in the --
15 A In the backseat on the right side.
16 Q Behind the passenger?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Where were you sitting in that car?
19 A In the middle.
20 Q Was Mr. Jackson in that car with you?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Where was Mr. Jackson sitting?
23 A In the backseat on the left side.
24 Q Behind the driver?
25 A Yes.
80
1 Q Can you tell me whether or not you had a
2 firebomb in that car when you were arrested that
3 night?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Do you know whether or not there were any other
6 firebombs in that car?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Who else had firebombs in that car if anyone?
9 A Three people in the backseat.
10 Q Did Mr. Jackson have a firebomb?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Did Mr. Stallings have a firebomb?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Can you tell me when those firebombs were made?
15 Do you know?
16 A The night we got arrested.
17 Q Prior to getting into that car before you got
18 into the car?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Where? At what location were those firebombs
21 made?
22 A 17th and Wright.
23 Q And who was present? Who was there at the time
24 that the firebombs were made up?
25 A Me, Edward Jackson and Tyrone Stallings.
81
1 Q You, Edward Jackson and Tyrone Stallings?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Can you tell me whether or not the defendant,
4 Edward Jackson, helped to make those firebombs?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Can you tell me what those firebombs were going
7 to be used for?
8 A Blowing up a building.
9 Q Blowing up a building?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Did you agree with other people that you were
12 going to help blow up a building?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Did you talk to Edward Jackson about that
15 agreement?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Did you talk to Tyrone Stallings about that
18 agreement?
19 A No.
20 Q You talked to Edward Jackson?
21 A Yes.
22 Q When did you first find out -- From whom did you
23 first find out that you were going to be involved
24 in blowing up a building?
25 A Ed Jackson.
82
1 Q The defendant?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Can you tell me whether or not you expected to
4 get any money for helping to blow up the
5 building?
6 A Not really.
7 Q Did someone tell you that you would be paid for
8 it?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Who told you?
11 A Ed Jackson.
12 Q Edward Jackson?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Do you know whether or not -- Strike that. Was
15 there another part of the plan that involved the
16 firebombs that night? Do you understand the
17 question?
18 A I don't know.
19 Q Okay. Did someone tell you that there were going
20 to be people shooting when the houses were
21 firebombed?
22 MR. ROSEN: Objection. This is
23 leading.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 THE COURT: Overruled.
83
1 MS. KRAFT:
2 Q Who told you that?
3 A Ed.
4 Q The defendant?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Do you know who were to be the people who were
7 shooting the night that the firebombs were to be
8 thrown?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Who were the shooters going to be?
11 A Duane Brown and James Tate.
12 Q The two people in the front seat of the car?
13 A Yes.
14 Q When you went to the location that you were
15 arrested that night, were you going -- was the
16 purpose to do the plan that you had talked about,
17 firebombing the house?
18 A Yes.
19 MR. ROSEN: Objection. This is all
20 leading.
21 THE COURT: I didn't hear you.
22 MR. ROSEN: This is all leading. I'm
23 objecting.
24 THE COURT: Read that question back.
25 (Question read aloud by the Reporter.)
84
1 THE COURT: It is a leading question.
2 Sustained.
3 -MS. KRAFT: Well, I disagree. It's a
4 yes or no question.
5 THE COURT: You can disagree all you
6 want.
7 MS. KRAFT:
8 Q When you set out in that car that night, where
9 were you going?
10 A To the location on 14th and Meinecke.
11 Q What were you going to do there?
12 A Throw a bottle through a window.
13 Q Were you going to get out of the car to throw the
14 firebombs?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Was anyone else going to get out of the car?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Who else was going to get out of the car?
19 A Ed Jackson and Tyrone Stallings.
20 MS. KRAFT: Thank you. That's all.
21 THE COURT: Cross-examination.
22 CROSS-EXAMINATION
23 BY MR. ROSEN:
24 Q You're on disability for learning? You have a
25 learning disability, don't you?
85
1 A Yes.
2 Q You are on SSI for that?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Now, you have pled guilty to part of this
5 offense, correct?
6 A Yes.
7 Q You have not been sentenced yet though, correct?
8 A Yes.
9 Q That's a correct statement? You haven't been
10 sentenced?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And you're hoping that your testimony here
13 will affect the outcome of that sentence, don't
14 you?
15 A Hoping.
16 Q Pardon me?
17 A Hoping.
18 Q You're hoping the district attorney might say
19 good things about you to help you in that
20 sentence.
21 A Hoping.
22 Q Also you're hoping your lawyer will say that too,
23 correct?
24 A Yes.
25 Q You are also hoping that the judge will also
86
1 consider that, don't you?
2 A Hoping.
3 Q Because your testimony here today you hope will
4 affect your sentence, isn't that true?
5 A Not really.
6 Q But you're hoping that everybody is going to
7 consider how you do today before they sentence
8 you, correct?
9 A No, not really.
10 Q But you just said that you are hoping and
11 expecting that the district attorney will say
12 favorable things about you, isn't that true?
13 A No.
14 Q You just said that you did hope that, didn't
15 you?
16 A Yes.
17 Q All .right. And you did also say that you hoped
18 your lawyer will say good things about you
19 because of your testimony today, correct?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And you're hoping that the judge is also going to
22 consider that in your sentence too, correct?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Now, you said that Ed Jackson was the one that
25 came, talked to you about the plan, correct?
87
1 A Yes.
2 Q And Ty Stallings was in the car also, correct?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Your testimony is that Ty Stallings never talked
5 to you, right?
6 A No, sir.
7 Q So Ty Stallings now did talk to you, right?
8 A No, sir.
9 Q Just everything was Ed? Everything was Ed?
10 MS. KRAFT: Excuse me. I didn't hear
11 the question. I think it's argumentative. I
12 object.
13 THE COURT: It becomes argumentative
14 because it was repetitive.
15 MR. ROSEN:
16 Q Everything was Ed, right?
17 A No, sir.
18 Q Some of it was Ty Stallings?
19 A No, sir.
20 Q It was you then, right?
21 A No, sir.
22 Q Besides Duane Brown and Joseph Tate, it was Ed,
23 right?
24 A Right.
25 Q Who else was it?
88
1 A Christopher.
2 Q Forget about Christopher. But as far as the
3 firebombs and all of that, it was everything --
4 getting you into this was basically Ed, right?
5 A No, sir.
6 Q Ed was the one that talked to you, right?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Ty Stallings -- you never talked to Ty Stallings?
9 Is that your testimony?
10 A No, sir.
11 0 So you never did talk to Ty Stallings?
12 A No, sir.
13 Q And Ed was the one who told which house was to be
14 done, right?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q It wasn't Ty Stallings then, was it?
17 A No, sir.
18 Q Okay. You had a gun in that car, didn't you?
19 A Yes.
20 Q That was only for protection?
21 A Yes.
22 Q You didn't intend to shoot anybody, did you?
23 A No, sir.
24 Q You gave a statement to a Detective Rankovic on
25 the night of August 23rd, correct?
89
1 A Yes, sir.
2 Q At that time you recall telling Detective
3 Rankovic that the bottles were already made the
4 first time you arrived at the 17th and Wright
5 house?
6 Do you recall telling Detective
7 Rankovic that?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 Q Now you're saying the bottles weren't already
10 made, right? Now you're saying you helped make
11 those bottles, right, those bombs?
12 A Yes, sir.
13 Q All right. So basically what you told Detective
14 Rankovic was not true, right?
15 A Yes, 'Sir. .
16 Q Now, basically what you just agreed to do was
17 firebomb a house, right?
18 A Yes, sir.
/
19 Q And that's what -- Your motive was to firebomb a
20 house and make some money, right?
21 A No, sir.
22 Q Your motive was not to make money?
23 A No, sir.
24 Q You didn't want to make any money on this?
25 A Yes --No.
90
1 Q You did this out of the goodness of your heart,
2 right?
3 A Yes.
4 Q That's why you were going to firebomb this
5 house was out of the goodness of your heart,
6 right?
7 MS. KRAFT: Objection. He's repeating
8 the questions. It's asked and answered. I
9 object.
10 THE COURT: Some repetition is
11 permitted on cross-examination.
12 MR. ROSEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
13 Q You met with Carol Kraft prior to today to talk
14 about what you were going to say today?
15 A Yes.
16 Q How many times did you meet with her?
17 A Once.
18 Q And that's basically going over what you're going
19 to say here today, right?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Have you ever been convicted of a crime, sir?
22 A Yes.
23 Q How many times?
24 A Twice.
25 Q Those are criminal convictions, correct?
91
1 Q You did this out of the goodness of your heart,
2 right?
3 A Yes.
4 Q That's why you were going to firebomb this
5 house was out of the goodness of your heart,
6 right?
7 MS. KRAFT: Objection. He's repeating
8 the questions. It's asked and answered. I
9 object.
10 THE COURT: Some repetition is
11 permitted on cross-examination.
12 MR. ROSEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
13 Q You met with Carol Kraft prior to today to talk
14 about what you were going to say today?
15 A Yes.
16 Q How many times did you meet with her?
17 A Once.
18 Q And that's basically going over what you're going
19 to say here today, right?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Have you ever been convicted of a crime, sir?
22 A Yes.
23 Q How many times?
24 A Twice.
25 Q Those are criminal convictions, correct?
to home
Back to FFUP index