It Was Not Murder – Part 1

My name is Gentry Jackson at the age of 34 I was sentenced to 48 years for murder in June 13, 2016 in Lake County, Indiana Court Room 1. I have no previous record of violent behavior and have never had a run in with the police. I was a law-abiding citizen of Gary, IN. I was at home when this tragic incident occurred. I had just finished a midnight shift at second job with nothing on my mind but getting some much-needed sleep. I sincerely regret and have great remorse for what happen. Also, I feel if it was any possibility to have done anything different August 3, 2015, I would have. Moreover, if my passion of fear and chaos were not so high the outcome would be different.
I am writing my story because this event has a great stake in my destiny and what my future holds, up until now I have not had any criminal history. I was solidly employed, and a step-father of four children, and a man of God. Now I spend each day of my existence fighting for a chance to be that man again. This sentence is to be served within the Indiana Department of Corrections. As you are reading this can you imagine how it must feel to wake up expecting an ordinary day much like the rest? Yet found yourself forced to choose between the possibility of death and fighting to live; then finding yourself with a prison sentence much like a life sentence. Can you imagine the thoughts, feelings, or weight that I carry each day as I try to make do with a life of confinement? Can you imagine how my family and so many others must feel or what they are going through?
To properly and adequately illustrate this point I call to your attention to my case Gentry H. Jackson (Jackson v. State 86 N.E. 3d 455, (2017 Ind.) All the issues are present in this case, as well as several others. I was an employed, law-abiding citizens and productive member within his community. I was confronted at my place of residence by my wife’s ex-husband and the father of her children, even after the ex-husband was told on several occasions that he was not welcomed there. I was the provider and caretaker of my family naturally I felt compelled to intervene once it became apparent an unwelcomed and often threaten by this unwanted person who was lying in wait outside my domain. I was eventually confronted with the brandishing of a firearm by the unwelcomed visitor and acted how I deemed necessary at that time (Fight or Flight) with the circumstances present that I was faced with. Yet, I found myself the defendant of a murder charge.
I was granted a bail and posted it. Pursuant to Indiana Constitution a bail will not be granted on a charge of murder if the presumption or evidence of guilt is strong, pursuant to Ind. Const. Act. 1, Section 17. I remained out on bail until the conclusion of my trial. However, as previously stated whether you acted within the confines of I.C. 35-41-3-2; a trial pursuant to such action in Indiana is a game of chance or roll of the dice for the accused. For instance the evidence over whelming supported my version of events or testimony. For example, the biological daughter of the decedent, My stepdaughter, initially stated that she saw her father in possession of a firearm while he sat in the vehicle outside my residence. However, due to the influence of other family members she eventually recanted her statement. This however was of no consequences as her newly adopted stance acted to aid the prosecution in their endeavors. Keep in mind this was an incident involving multiple members of a blended family; naturally lines were drawn, and sides were taken. Sadly, the pursuit of truth or justice became a forgotten formality as the motive or intent of the prosecution was pushed to the forefront.
This was but a drop in the bucket of questionable action or omissions committed in the handling of my case. A witness of no relation to the members involved in the case saw and testified to the fact that he witnessed two men enter the decedent’s vehicle immediately following the incident and remove items, one being a black duffle bag. This clearly and concisely shows that the crime scene was altered or tainted even before law enforcement came into play. Not only did the prosecution ignore this fact, but My counsel failed to adequately act on this issue. Not surprisingly no firearm was able to be recovered from the decedent or the vehicle occupied by him. The description of the two men seen entering the vehicle matched the descriptions of the decedent’s biological son which is My stepson and his friend. In furtherance the fact that they entered the vehicle was corroborated by testimony presented in trial.
Had my counsel been effective and secured expert testimony it would have acted to verify his version of events and or bolstered his defense. Yet, I (Mr. Jackson) was not afforded this logical and reasonable course of action. However, testimony was given by a witness, whom was not an expert that should have been ruled to have risen to the level of expert opinion, thus making it inadmissible. In furtherance I (Mr. Jackson) testimony or version of events was never disproven by anything presented in trial. Instead, I (Mr. Jackson’s) fate was determined by a jury after listening to the two attorney’s assert claims without providing tangible evidence to support either argument.
Then I appealed my conviction to the Indiana court of appeals, but found no relief there, after which I filed a petition for Post-Conviction Relief and asserted the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, pertaining to my trial counsel. I (Mr. Jackson) found myself denied the relief I sought. I am attempting to obtain relief by way of Federal Habeas Corpus proceedings.
In my case this is a prime example of the manipulation of the system is the area of self-defense or defense of another. IC 35-41-3-2; states “if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person, employer, or estate of a person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.” Yet, this does little to afford one who is acting in self-defense or defense of another any protections in Indiana. For if you act in self-defense, you will surely see a trial setting or at least you will if you are one of a minority. Again, to face a trial is legal jeopardy, by definition, the outcome of a trial is not guaranteed for anyone. Clearly if Indiana wants you convicted, they get you convicted, (Due Process) despite the evidence or improper tactics utilized (colorable law). In furtherance, I was forced to put my life and fate in the hands of complete strangers who hold no true incentive or motivation to pursue your best interests (ineffective Counsels) or ensure that we are merely treated fairly.
Sadly, there is precedent in existence meant to prevent such pitfalls for the accused. See McKee v. State (1926), 198 Ind. 590, 598 154 N.E. 372, 374-375. “The question of the existence or appearance of danger to the defendant, the necessity of defending himself, and the amount of force necessary, must be determined from the standpoint of the accused at the time and under the existing circumstances as shown by the evidence.” However, this is meaningless as juries are often persuaded by the prosecution to believe what they are told and not what the evidence shows. Too often the cases are presented in a very weighted or one-sided manner. See Loza v. State (1975), Ind. 325 N.E. 2d 173. “A defendant is denied the right to exercise reasonable forces in response to an unwarranted attack when he is not permitted to present evidence relevant to the claim of self-defense. When a defendant claims that he acted in self-defense, evidence legitimately tending to support his theory is admissible.”
There is a toxic or detrimental culture or norm that has been allowed to spawn for far too long in the Indiana Criminal Justice System. It is often acknowledged or alluded to, but no plausible action has been taken to rectify or correct this long-standing issues. People who are said to be citizens of Indiana are stripped of and denied fundamental rights each day. Sadly, the perpetrator of these injustices is the very government said to protect the citizens. State or Federal Constitution only holds weight when it can be construed to carry out the purpose of intent of the State. Yet, when interjected in defense of the citizens we are told this was not its intended purpose or design.
This explains why there are many people in Indiana prisons attempting to preserve their lives or the life of another. To act on the will to live in Indiana, can and will most likely result in a decade long prison sentence or even a life sentence. These are people who were positive and productive members of their communities. In furtherance most of them legally possessed the weapons utilized in their defense and were fully cooperative with law enforcement. Yet, if the state gets wind of one person or witness whose version of events contradicts the actor’s or multiple other witnesses, then the pursuit of justice no longer exists, and the only intent is to feed the machine that is labeled criminal justice system. Most times the State’s witnesses will give multiple inconsistent statements or fully recant prior statements. However, this is of no consequence if it aids the state Indiana is depriving its citizens of their (Constitution rights) liberty and stocking the shelves of the prison enterprise.
So, I speak on behalf of many, should you read this and find yourself concerned, please speak up! Help us to draw attention to this festering issue and say many people from being victims to the very government said or thought to protect them. To get something you have never had, you must be willing to do something you have never done. Thus, we are prepared to write to as many different people or organizations as many times as possible. We will continue to fight until we reach the point where our cries can and will no longer be ignored, not just for ourselves, but others who may find themselves in our shoes and for all the families that suffer along with the incarcerated individuals. Truly we are removed from sight but far from forgotten. Should you be willing or have the time, Mr. Jackson is willing to provide any documents necessary for your review. Thank you for your time and consideration

Humbly and respectfully,
Gentry H. Jackson 250189