IT WAS NOT MURDER

To Whom it May Find Themselves Concerned:

There is a toxic or detrimental culture or norm that has been allowed to spawn for far too long in the United State of America.  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.

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.  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, despite the evidence or improper tactics utilized.  In furtherance, we are focused to put our lives or fates in the hands of complete strangers who hold no true incentive or motivation to pursue our best interests or ensure that we are merely treated fairly.

This explains why there are many people in Indiana prisons for 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.  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 in depriving its citizens of their liberty and stocking the shelves of the prison enterprise. 

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 told by the prosecution to believe what they are told and not what they see for themselves.  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.” 

To properly and adequately illustrate this point I call to your attention to the case of 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.  Gentry Jackson was an employed, law-abiding citizens and productive member within his community.  He was confronted at his place of residence by his wife’s ex-husband and father of her children, even after the ex-husband was told on several occasions that he was not welcomed there.  Being the provider and caretaker of his family naturally Mr. Jackson felt compelled to intervene once it became apparent an unwelcomed and often threatening visitor was lying in wait outside his domain.  Mr.  Jackson was eventually confronted with the brandishing of a firearm by the unwelcomed visitor and acted how he deemed necessary at that time with the circumstances present that he was faced with.  Yet, Mr. Jackson found himself the defendant of a murder charge.

Mr. Jackson 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.  Mr. Jackson remained out on bail until the conclusion of his 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.  In Mr. Jackson’s instance the evidence over whelming supported his version of events or testimony.  For example, the biological daughter of the decedent, Mr. Jackson stepdaughter, initially stated that she saw her father in possession of a firearm while he sat in the vehicle outside Mr. Jackson’s 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 Mr. Jackson’s 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 Mr. Jackson 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 Mr. Jackson’s stepson and his friend.  In furtherance the fact that they entered the vehicle was corroborated by testimony presented in trial. 

Had Mr. Jackson’s counsel been effective and secured expert testimony it would have acted to verify his version of events and or bolstered his defense. Yet, 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 Mr. Jackson testimony or version of events was never disproven by anything presented in trial.  Instead, 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.

Mr. Jackson then appealed his conviction to the Indiana court of appeals, but found no relief there, after which he filed a petition for Post-Conviction Relief and asserted the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, pertaining to his trial counsel.  Mr. Jackson found himself denied the relief he sought.  He now attempts to obtain relief by way of Federal Habeas Corpus proceedings.

In short, a man, a law abiding, solidly employed, and father of four children, and a man.  Now spends each day of his existence fighting for a chance to be that man again.  He was sentence to serve a 48-year sentence by the Lake Superior Court in Gary, Indiana.  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 Gentry Jackson carries with him each day as he tries to make do with a life of confinement?  Can you imagine how the families of Gentry Jackson and so many others must feel or what they are going through?

So, 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, 

Robert Curry Doc# 150193

Gentry H. Jackson Dox# 250189