Monday, November 23, 2020
Monday, November 2, 2020
Texas Prison Heat
The Texas Extreme Summer Heat is here - EXTREME
HEAT this TEXAS SUMMER HEAT
INMATES need fans to move the air inside of
their cells because they only have like a 4" x 8" window (if it can
be opened) to circulate air inside of their cell. If they have the metal door
on their cell instead of the bars, then the only opening on that door is the
bean hole slot that is like a mail slot, if they have no circulation inside
their cell then the heat becomes almost intolerable.
Please contact the listed people asking that the
electrical wiring be upgraded in "ALL" prison units enabling the
Inmates to have fans. If the Unit can have fan please be sure your
"Inmate" has one.
Please ask the Legislators to instruct the Texas
Industrial Prison Directors,Supervisors,Captains,Wardens, to see that
"ALL" Inmates have a fan to prevent HEAT STROKES, HEART FAILURE due
to the HEAT, Sickness due to the excessive heat. In this drought time of TEXAS
the summers is going to be really "HOT" and dry creating more illness
for the Inmates especially the elderly,sick,mentally disabile ones ... be sure
to ask that the inmates being held in solitary confinement have circulation of
air via Fans.
DO NOT DONATE FUNDS FOR FANS UNTIL YOU KNOW
IF:This is a reminder that many of the older Texas Prison Units ****** DO NOT
****** have the electrical capabilities to carry the extra load of FANS for the
Inmates. As a result of this problem many Inmates ****** CAN NOT ****** have
fans.
People Against Prison Abuse aka PAPA, requested
several times from the TDCJ administration, the facilities names and locations
of the units within TDCJ that are not able to have fans due to the old wiring
and breaker boxes. PAPA did not receive this list in order to inform the people
of the many units that are not allowed to have fans.
It has been reported that many of the units have
closets full of fans that were donated, but, the INMATES are not allowed to
have due the fans due to the electrical problem.It has been said many times
that ALL Inmates are supposed to be allowed to have fans but that is not
happening due to the electrical wiring problems in some of the units.
For those that do not know, several of the TDCJ
Units in the Huntsville area are 75 to 125 years old including East Texas and
South Texas. These old buildings do not allow Inmates to have more than a 25
wyatt light bulb because the electrical wiring will not carry the extra load of
more wattage. Also, the plumbing is just as old where the sewers are always
backing up and where brown water comes out of the pipes and the Inmates have to
use this for their drinking water. These old units are infested with roaches,
spiders, rats, mice, with dugeon like atmospheres.
Before more fans are purchased to be stored in
closets, those that are concerned for Inmates to have fans, need to call,
email, fax, write their REPRESENTATIVES (Texas Legislator on Line email:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us or look in your
search for Texas Online Legislators
for the Representative for your area requesting
that something be done about this situation. Request that units be replaced
with new unit buildings that are up to date in the electrical and plumbing
areas enabling the Inmates to have proper electrical, plumbing, and water
facilities in place of Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
Also send a copy of your complaint to:
Sunset Commission<br>Texas Department of
Criminal Justice
1400 North Congress
Capitol Extension, Suite E2.2002
Austin, TX 78701
EMAIL: Sunset@Sunset.state.tx.us
Governor Rick Perry
State of Texas
The Capitol
P.O.Box 12428
Austin, TX 78711
governor.state.tx.us/contact/
Lt. Governor David Dewhurst, Chair
Legislative Council of Texas
The Capitol
Austin,TX 78711-2968
EMAIL: www.ltgov.state.tx.us/contact.php
Senator John Whitmire,Chair
Senate Committee on Criminal Justice
P.O.Box 12068,Capitol Station
Austin, TX78711
EMAIL: www.whitmire.senate.state.tx.us = CONTACT
EMAIL
Representative Jerry Madden, Chair
House Correction Committee
Capitol Office: EXT E1-506
P.O.Box 2910
Austin, TX 79711-2910
2mpCIA "TAKE ACTION"
write to:<br>Rep. Jerry Madden, Chair
Texas Correction Committee:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/member-page/?district=67
to EMAIL Madden
Thank you 2mpCIA TEAM MEMBER
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
STOP-the-INSANITY
"NOT" Soft on Crime,"STRONG"
on FAIR JUSTICE
2mpCIA ALERT - "TAKE ACTION"
http://www.peopleagainstprisonabuse.com/2mp/2mpciaindex.html
2mp "TAKE ACTION"
Notation: TEXAS Prison Summer HEAT, any request
for funds for Fan Projects from other locations. Remember many units are not
allowed to use fans due to the old electrical wiring and any fans sent in are
just stored in storage and the INMATES never get them! Verify that fans can be
used at the unit you are requesting a fan for Inmate
Use of Lies to Obtain the Truth" The Police Can Lie to You
August 21, 2006
Use of Lies to Obtain the Truth:
The Police Can Lie to You
By: Colin McKibben, Attorney at Law &
In his closing argument in State of California
v. O.J. Simpson, Johnnie Cochran told the jury how they should view Detective
Vannaters testimony: You cant trust him. You cant believe anything he says
because it goes to the core of this case. When you are lying at the beginning,
you will be lying at the end. The book of Luke talks about that if you are
untruthful in small things, you should be disbelieved in big things. Deborah
Young, Unnecessary Evil: Police Lying in Interrogations, 28 Conn. L. Rev. 425 (1996).
Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court
has ruled that the Police can lie to you in order to extract a confession,
Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969). The only place an officer cannot lie
is while testifying under oath in court, and criminal defense attorneys
occasionally catch an officer lying, even on the witness stand. Police are only
required to advise you of your Constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436, if you are in custody and being interrogated about the offense
for which you are being confined. This point is usually determined to be the
point in which the suspect is placed under arrest, or the suspect would
reasonably conclude that he or she is under arrest and not free to leave.
Detectives are very good at creating the illusion that you are free to go, when
actually, you are not. For example, the detective may tell you that you are
free to go at any time, but that it would benefit you to provide your side of
the story as the evidence does not look to be in your favor, therefore you can
be pursuaded into continuing the interrogation.
During interrogations, police who use this
tactic may lie about the facts of a case. For example, where you have an 18
year old male who has a 15 year old girlfriend, the officer will tell him that
they have evidence that he raped her, when in fact, they do not. The 18 year
old tells the officer that they had consensual sex and that there was no rape
involved; now the officer has a confession as to Statutory Rape that came
straight from the mouth of the suspect. In trying to exonerate himself from the
charge of Rape, the 18 year old legally confessed to the lesser crime of
Statutory Rape. In Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969), the officer was
able to extract a confession from the criminal defendant by lying about the
strength of the case. During interrogation, the officer lied to the criminal
defendant and told him that his cousin, had confessed to the possession of
cocaine with intent to distribute, also implicating the criminal defendant in
the crime. The criminal defendant then also confessed to the crime in reliance
of the officers false statement. The Court determined that the criminal
defendants confession was voluntary and the fact that he was given his Miranda
rights prior to making the confession was relevant to a finding of waiver and
voluntariness. Id.
Police officers are also allowed to fabricate
evidence to support a deception. In re D.A.S., 391 A.2d 255, (D.C. App. 1978)
the police pretended to compare the defendants fingerprints to a fingerprint on
the victims checkbook and pronounced them a match when in truth, no
fingerprints were recovered from the checkbook. The defendant confessed to the
robbery and the Court held that the police deception did not by itself invalidate
a voluntary confession. Id. at 258. Confessions are not invalid or
inadmissible, even if they are obtained by deception or trickery, as long as
the means employed are not calculated to produce an untrue statement. Only if
the deception, combined with other factors, coerces the suspect or defendant to
confess, will the court deem the confession inadmissible. Id., at 259.
In order to extract confessions, police may also
attempt to persuade the suspect or defendant that her conduct was less
blameworthy than anticipated. Deborah Young, Unnecessary Evil, 28 Conn. L. Rev.
425, 433 (1996). Police may lie about the victim to diminish the suspects fear
of confessing. In People v. Jordan, 597 N.Y.2d 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993), the
police told the defendant that he may be able to save the victim if he told the
police exactly what happened. The police falsely told the defendant that the
victim had just received eighteen stitches for her knife wound and would soon
be out of the hospital, when in actuality, the victim had died. The defendant
confessed to stabbing the victim believing that he would be charged with
assault and not murder. The court affirmed the murder conviction, holding that,
"mere deception by the police is not alone sufficient to render a confession
inadmissible unless accompanied by a promise or threat that could induce a
false confession." Id. at 808.
In Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201
(1964), federal agents used an informant as a secret conspirator to listen in
on the criminal defendants conversations. He made incriminating statements to
the informant, not knowing that the informant was secretly working with the
federal agents. At the time the statement was made, the criminal defendant was
out on bail and had already secured an attorney. The Court held that because
the criminal defendant had secured an attorney and had already been indicted,
federal agents could not attempt to elicit a confession without the presence of
the criminal defendants retained counsel. Id., at 204.
The Court is reluctant to bar such police
tactics and confessions because of the assumption that an innocent person of
normal intelligence will not admit to a crime she did not commit. Patrick M.
McMullen, Questioning the Questions: The Impermissibility of Police Deception
in Interrogations of Juveniles, 99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 971, 974 (2005). However, the
Court has recognized the inherently coercive nature of police interrogations,
thereby mandating the police to provide Miranda warnings to suspects and
defendants to lessen such coercion. The intimidation is even greater on
juveniles. The power of police to deceive juvenile suspects during
interrogations is significant since kids may be even more impressionable and
confused. Juveniles are more likely than adults to defer to the wishes of adult
authority figures and are more susceptible to suggestions of guilt. Id., at
975. Juveniles are more likely to believe things that adults, especially
powerful authority figures, tell them. Many kids are taught to trust police
officers and to have faith in them as enforcers of law. They are not raised to
believe that officers will resort to deception in order to carry out the law.
Id., at 997. Thus juveniles are easily pressured into admitting guilt or
agreeing to false information. Unfortunately, the interrogation room is one of
the few places where the Court has been unwilling to protect juveniles from
their own bad or premature decisions. In Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707
(1979) the Supreme Court decided that juvenile confessions were to be assessed
under the totality of circumstances standard and thus age was only one of many
factors that come into play when assessing the admissibility of juvenile
confessions.
Police deception may be helpful in eliciting
confessions from guilty suspects. However, such manipulation also extracts
false confessions, especially from juveniles. Placing false hope in young
suspects by promises of leniency and misrepresentation of evidence are
effective in inducing such false confessions. Patrick M. McMullen, Questioning
the Questions, 99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 971, 988 (2005). The vast majority of evidence
that prosecutors obtain against defendants comes straight from their own mouths
because of the Police interrogation methods discussed.
For these reasons, it is best to obtain the
services of a skilled criminal defense attorney before an opportunity for
questioning arises, or any charges are filed. After discussing with the client
what is known about the scope of the investigation, the attorney should start
by advising the detective that the defendant is represented by counsel, and not
to talk to his client without that counsel present. If you have no inkling that
you might be investigated or charged with a crime prior to being contacted by
law enforcement, it is very important that you consult an attorney before
speaking to authorities. While an officer may imply that failure to speak
immediately will result in arrest, a person cannot be arrested for exercising
the right to remain silent. Police can only arrest a person if probable cause
exists, and the choice to remain silent cannot be part of that analysis. If the
officers already have probable cause, they would not need to question you. If
they do not, the statement you make could well supply it.
HELP IS NEEDED FROM "YOU" TO MAKE
CHANGES
IT ONLY TAKES ONE
ARE YOU THAT ONE?
JOIN US AT:
www.peopleagainstprisonabuse.com/page1
