Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Little Rock, AR
(501) 378-3400
news@ardemgaz.com

Bastrop Daily Enterprise
Bastrop, LA
(318) 281-4421
mrainwater@bastropenteprise.com

Clarksdale Press Register
Clarksdale, MS
(662) 627-2201
cprnews@cableone.net

Daily Sentinel Star
Grenada, MS
(662) 226-4321
dailystar@grenadastar.com

Delta Democrat Times
Greenville, MS
(662) 335-1155
ddt@link.freedom.com

DeSoto Times Today
Southaven, MS
(662) 393-6397
destimes@aol.com

Evening Times
West Memphis, AR
(870) 735-1010
etnews@midsouth.rr.com

Forrest City Times-Herald
Forrest City, AR
(870) 633-3130
tamjohns@thnews.com

Greenwood Commonwealth
Greenwood, MS
(662) 453-5312
commonwealth@gwcommonwealth.com

Helena Daily World
Helena, AR
(870) 338-9181
editorial@helena-arkansas.com

Jacksonville Patriot
Jacksonville, AR
(501) 982-6506
news@jacksonvillepatriot.com

Oxford Eagle
Oxford, MS
(662) 234-4331
opinions@oxfordeagle.com

Pine Bluff Commercial
Pine Bluff, AR
(870) 534-3400
pbnews@pbcommercial.com

Starkville Daily News
Starkville, MS
(662) 323-1642
dnews@netdoor.com

Stuttgart Daily Leader
Stuttgart, AR
(870) 673-8533
editor@stuttgartdailyleader.com

4000 The Bolivar Commercial
Cleveland, MS
(662) 843-4241
mark.williams@bolivarcommercial.com

The Commercial Appeal
Memphis, TN
(901) 529-2345
kerrsuz@gomemphis.com

The Daily Citizen
Searcy, AR
(501) 268-8621
citizen@cswnet.com

The News-Star
Monroe, LA
(318) 322-5161
news@thenewsstar.com

Subject:

You’re Letter:

Write your letter to the editor in this box making specific points.

Also, be sure to include your daytime and evening phone numbers at the end of your letter. Many newspapers will call you back to confirm that you are the author of your letter, and will not print it without this information!

REMEMBER: DELETE THESE INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE WRITING YOUR LETTER AND INCLUDE YOUR DAYTIME AND EVENING PHONE NUMBERS.

First Name:
Last Name:
Email:
Street:
Street 2:
City:
State:

The case of Jeffrey Keith Havard highlights some of the many problems that death penalty supporters have no answers for: the risk of innocent people being executed, inadequate counsel, and racial and economic status disparities.

Since Mr. Havard’s trial the autopsy was performed by a man that does not have his license and the state of Mississippi knew this.
In my Direct Appeal, under issue #4 (pgs. 11-19) this was the three—pronged argument of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; 1) failure to obtain DNA evidence, 2) failure to secure a pathologist. 3) Failure to include lesser offense instruction, i.e., reducing the charge to simple murder or manslaughter. In the following paragraphs the text I will be quoting will deal almost exclusively with the third-prong of issue #4. Now, to the Briefs I mentioned.

State’s Reply (Brief of Appellee) (pgs. 57&58):
(pg.57) “. . , All counsel had to do to exonerate Appellant was disprove
the underlying felony. Had he done that and yet submitted lesser
offense instructions, there was a chance the jury could have sentenced
Appellant to prison, when without a lesser instruction, they could only
set him free. As such, counsel’s decision was not in violation of
Woodward (cited case law) was not in violation of any controlling law,
was not improper and, therefore, was not deficient.

The State also questions as to how or why counsel should have requested lesser instructions on simple murder or manslaughter. Appellant asserted throughout trial, and he asserts now, that he accidentally dropped Chloe Britt as she got out of the bathtub, this contention does not rise to the level of simple murder or manslaughter. For simple murder to be shown, there must have been evidence that Appellant had a felonious and premeditated intent to kill Chloe Britt,, .(case citings),,,For manslaughter to be shown, there must have been evidence that Appellant killed Chloe Britt in a provoked heat of passion,. .(statute citing).. .No evidence was presented to support either of these charges, and Appellant presents none here. Counsel cannot be deficient for failing to request an instruction unsupported by the evidence and contrary to the valid theory of Appellant’s defense (accidental injury and no evidence of battery)…”
pg. 580…“…Neither murder nor Manslaughter was supported by the evidence; therefore, there is no likelihood that the Jury would have found Appellant guilty of either of these two lesser crimes.”

The Mississippi Supreme Court opinion (pg.26) says this:
“.. .The record before us raises serious doubts as to whether the evidence supported the giving of a non—capital murder instruction…”

Also, let me include an excerpt from an affidavit given by my Trial attorney. This affidavit was originally submitted in conjunction with my Direct Appeal:
“.. .We believed that our best defense to the capital murder charge was to challenge the evidence of sexual battery, the underlying felony and to argue that the death of the child was an accident.
I believe that a pathologist could have assisted in that aspect of the case, but had no funding to hire a pathologist and I did not consult a pathologist. I did consult a registered nurse. Mr. Clark filed a motion for funding, but the motion was denied…”

Now, it should be painfully obvious what this case is about, especially considering the fact that it is the State and Court(s) (State Supreme Court and Circuit Court) conceding this. Speaking of the Circuit Court (Trial Court); go back to my last posting, on this site, on 12/21/06 at 6:09 pm and 7:10 pm, lines 14—17, and you will read a summation of the Judge’s opinion, during Directed Verdict.

Throughout the entire record of this case it is obvious that the only thing I did wrong-under the law-was not have an explanation for the 1 cm. bruise, which the State claims is evidence of the underlying felony. But, wait a minute . . . under the law, throughout this Nation, no defendant is required to prove his/her innocence, but it is the State’s burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt. As-a-matter-of-fact, a defendant is not required to speak a word throughout the criminal proceedings. Starting at the time of arrest.

In my situation, how could the State even begin to prove anything, beyond reasonable doubt, with nothing more than pure speculation, at best? At Trial, during Directed Verdict, how can the Judge agree there are no witnesses, there’s no confession, and that the death of the child could very well be an accident, but hold me accountable for a 1 cm. bruise I know nothing about? Does that even sound ethical, considering the rights of a defendant? Read the record. The only factual opinion the prosecution could have is; well, Mr. Havard was there, so he had to cause this injury (bruise) some kind of way.

And just like that, the State gained an unjust conviction. They did this mainly by rousing the passions of the jurors and by presenting extreme and overly absurd exaggerations to those jurors, which could have easily been discredited by the evidence, primarily the autopsy report, Which, I might add, the jurors never saw.

But, you know what? forget about my situation for a moment. What about the DA’s duty to the victim’s family? Sure enough, he or she has an obligation to uphold the law and prosecute crimes. But, it’s also the DA’s duty to make damn sure there is a crime, Now, consider two possibilities: that this case is a tragic accident blown way out—of-proportion or, the accusations-rape and murder-are true. Assuming that one of these scenarios is the truth, which do you suppose the victim’s family would prefer? But, if the family doesn’t care about the truth and/or wants’ revenge, and advocates an absurd lie, to exact that vengeance, then that last question is futile, You see, this case is not about whodunit, Or to put another way; well, if Jeff didn’t do this, then who else is to blame? Either way you look at it, the DA had an obligation to pursue Justice; I thought Justice was about truth and fairness for all. The People elect our officials to ensure that creed. They take an Oath to do so. Well, that’s the general idea anyway.

This site was started to debate this case and to expose the real truth. And to spread this truth far and wide. But, in retrospect, just maybe, my unconscious goal was to reveal how the judicial system really operates. It is not far-fetched to think that anyone could possibly find themselves in a predicament similar to mine, I would hope that I am the last person to go though such a dreadful hardship, such as this.

I often wonder; could we all be so lucky not to have our birthright liberties stripped from us so callously, under the veil of law, the same law meant to be defended by those officials we elect to represent and protect us, Then I tune back to my condition of disparity and I realize that indeed, not every is so blessed. But, in accordance with long—standing law, every person shall have the good fortune of a fair legal system at their disposal.

And I thought, analogously, that lady (Justice) was wearing a blindfold. Instead, my half decade of experience tells me that I was blind sided, and as the lady should’ve been, I was the one blindfolded.

Nevertheless, this is my earnest and interminable existence until my definitive vindication occurs. And who knows whether or not my life will return to normal, even then.

During Voir Dire (jury selection) a potential juror—that was eventually selected by my attorney to sit on the jury that decided my fate-said the following: (Trial transcript, pg.136)

“I don’t know him, but I had a niece to be raped—you know—
I don’t think I could be fair about it, too.”

While the Mississippi Supreme Court has refused to grant clemency, it has unfettered discretion to revisit the case.

Political expediency and embarrassment on the part of prosecutors, governors, and even judges can prevent rightful claims of innocence from being heard.

When mistakes are made with the death penalty, they often cannot be fixed.

Innocent people who are executed suffer an irrevocable punishment and the ultimate denial of due process and civil liberties. There have been 130 exonerations from death row in the United States in the past 35 years, and a good number of inmates have been executed despite serious questions about their guilt.

Please let me know when, where, and to whom Ronnie made the statement to.

#24 Ckaire Buck

Quote – “Accidents just don’t happen to babies”
Quote – “Accidents always have witnesses”

Are you listening to yourself?

Yes, actually. I listened as I wondered out loud whether anyone would have trouble recognizing the sarcasm in my comments. Then I immediately dismissed my concerns, thinking that surely this is too outrageous to be taken seriously by anyone. I was apparently wrong.

Are you listening to yourself? Why must an accident always have a witness!!
I am a mother and I consider myself a good one. I bring my little girl up on my own and yes accidents do happen and kids get bruises, bumps, trips, falls it happens and yes when my girl was 6 mths old she was difficult to bathe when wet and slippery and wriggling like 6 mths old do. Any parent can relate to that….but just because that accident did not happen to me or you, doesnt mean it isnt possible.
Please think about facts and what is possible put yourself in the same position and read all the information about the case. you may just view it differently then.

I mean aren’t there normally witnesses in the deaths of infants? Yeah right.

Jeffrey Havard Friday,
I want to thank all of my friends on this site for your warm holiday wishes. As well, I’m blessed to have your continued support, even though the court system would lose a race with cold molasses. Collectively, your patience is greatly appreciated. As for myself, I am doing as well as can be expected here. Sometimes, the difficulties here on death row seem almost greater than my struggle for justice, but I persevere. I have no choice, really, nor do I see any other option. As most of you know, “primary evidence” was recently obtained by my side (for the first time) and tested. Part of the evidence consisted of x-rays which conclusively answers the State’s primary question, i.e., why does there appear to be anal trauma (dilation), their contention for the underlying felony? The x-rays (essentially photographic evidence) confirm large amounts of air in the stomach and bowels. Combine this with the “flaccid” condition and abdomen “distension” (noted at the ER the night this tragedy happened) and the anal tissue samples which are negative for trauma (laceration or contusion), and then the answer becomes quite clear as to why medical personnel observed this dilation. Conclusively clear that NO “foul play” (crime) occurred. I just wish this had been THOROGHLY investigated, instead of a rush to judgment. What has it cost both families in this matter? For Chloe’s family to be told this horrible thing had happened and, NOW, to find out there was a MEDICAL explanation that should have been told to them before I or my lawyers found out… even before I was charged. This family believed the worst possible thing imaginable…due to a rush to judgment. Forget about my ordeal and what it is costing me. This is about the truth coming out. Finally, what about the waste of tax payer’s money for the trial and the long process of costly appeals? A proper investigation would be cheaper in all aspects, don’t you think? There are TWO things I’m sure of about the investigation because this “primary evidence” was in the possession of the State: (1) The State DID test or KNOW of this evidence and failed to disclose its exculpatory value (i.e.) proof of innocence, or (2) The State, did NOT bother to test this evidence because of a rush to judgment. I tend to believe in the latter. The former, in my opinion, is much worse. Either way, neither one is proper. I believe in the latter because I sincerely believe they made a mistake because they had “blinders” on. Their minds were set, and they felt they could gain a conviction based on speculation. Their case was essentially: he was there that night, so he had to have caused this some kind of way. In closing arguments, the ADA’s statement to the jury: “Ladies and Gentlemen, don’t try to figure out what could’ve caused it” support this. Now, if the State is interested in justice, they have the chance to show that Mississippi is fair and moving in a positive direction. I will close with quotes I draw strength and inspiration from, and I sincerely hope the “deciders) of my fate have read the same and/or share a similar mindset. James Jones wrote in FROM HERE TO ETERNITY: “Strength bred of necessity which is the only real strength”. Nietzsche said, “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies”, and Marx is quoted as saying, “If the appearance of things coincided with their essence, all science would be superfluous”. Thanks again for your support,
Jeff

Jack Blake
jblake04@gmail.com

The case isn’t one for you or I to decide. It’s one for a jury to decide–a jury that isn’t tainted by Dr. Hayne’s phony-yet-uncontested “evidence”. Juries should be assumed reliable when they have all the applicable facts and evidence at their disposal; when juries don’t have all such evidence, however, garbage-in-garbage-out.