Please note that the statements below regarding any person (or persons) mentioned in this ad for legal assistance,
and regarding this case, do not represent the opinions of Friends Beyond The Wall or its staff members and are
solely presented for review by the person above who is requesting legal assistance.

Hello! My name is Jeremiah Mungo, and I was wrongly convicted of two counts of second degree murder. Listed below is a brief summary of the injustice that occurred within my trial.

** VISIBLE PHYSICAL RESTRAINT **

After a jury was unable to reach a verdict in the first trial, (9 to 3 favoring acquittal). In a retrial I was forced to wear a visible stun belt because the prosecutor suffered from back problems, coupled with the fact that I had exercised my right to participate in the jury selection process.

Had I known that I would have been fitted with 70,000 volts of electricity, in addition to the psychological effects that accompany's wearing the device. I would have "NEVER" exercised my right to participate in trial!

When I asked my lawyer (Harry Tun) to object. He told me there was nothing he could do and that such procedures were routine.

As the potential jurors entered the jury room, I watched their reaction as they saw me in the stun belt. Some looked at me through eyes of fear, confusion, and disgust. The stun belt was removed after two days of jury "voir dire." However, I didn't testify on my behalf because I feared and reasoned that since I would be in closer proximity to the jury as opposed to in the jury room, the stun belt would be replaced (The trial court never gave me a reason for the restraints during trial.)

Fortuitously, a veteran DC Correctional Officer who served on the jury, testified that after viewing me in the stun belt, he perceived the device was needed as a "form of control." He also concluded that I had "definitely been in the system before," was "a bad criminal... who wasn't about to be played with," and most likely guilty. He further added that such exposure "negatively affected his verdict."

The trial court and the DC Court of Appeals denied relief, (see Mungo v. United States, 987 A. 2d 1145 (2010) (Holding that since the US Supreme Court has never "qualified" a stun belt as a physical restraint. It's usage is excluded from constitutional protections).

This decision is in conflict with every court that has concluded that a stun belt is a physical restraint subject to constitutional protections.

II. ** IMPROPER AND ILLEGAL CONTACT WITH JURY MEMBERS **

During the trial it was reported to the trial court 5 times, (4 times by the prosecuting attorneys [including once by a police sergeant who was observing the trial from the back of the courtroom], in addition to the court's own observation, and (1) once collectively by way of jury note), that both defense attorneys were illegally communicating to the government witnesses and the jury, (i.e., secretly trying to intimidate them and influence their verdict) by gestures and other inappropriate behavior.

Prior to the court witnessing (John Beaman) [co-defendant's counsel] slammed an exhibit and gestured to the jury. Both defense attorney's were restricted to the podium, received many verbal rebukes, and constantly but purposely lied to the court (i.e., stating that the government's accusations were false).

After excusing the jury the court cited Beaman with a contempt citation (i.e., monetary fine). When the jury returned they sent the court the following note, "Please ask the defense attorneys [sic] to watch their court demeanors when focusing on the jury." The trial went on without any inquiring to determine the extent of the jury's prejudice. I was never informed on the contents of the many bench conference concerning counsel conduct, nor of the jury's note.

At a hearing, it was discovered that my lawyer (Harry Tun) was double billing the court, (i.e., filing false vouches) from 2000 to 2004 (this case included) despite the fact that he was privately retained. He worked out a deal to avoid prosecution by agreeing to return $14,034.00 and report to Bar Counsel.

Even more surprisingly, (Beaman) was not licensed, (i.e., suspended by the Bar Counsel for disciplinary reasons) during the time of my trial! Nevertheless, in order to save the conviction, the trial court and the Court of Appeals affirmed that both counsel's conduct was "permissible trial strategy." see
(Mungo v. United States, 987 A. 2d 1145, 1157-58) (D.C. 2010).

This ruling sends a clear message to the public that jurors will not be protected from harassment and intimidation. It further speaks that it's okay for lawyers to rob, steal, lie to authority, disregard authority, if you're so fortunate to practice in the D.C. Superior Court.

III. ** UNLICENSED MEDICAL EXAMINER **

The pathologist in this case, (Dr. Joseph Garceau) had no valid medical license when he performed the autopsy on the decedents. Dr. Garceau was later fired for practicing without a valid medical license and subsequently charged by the U.S. Attorney Office.

In order to circumvent the "Confrontation Clause." The government called in another pathologist, (Dr. Jonathan Arden) who was later fired for an unrelated matter, who based his testimony on the notes, photographs, x-rays, and death certificates prepared by Dr. Garceau.

The prosecutor, (Michael Ambrosino) testified that Dr. Garceau work was sometimes "sloppy" and that he would often leave bullet fragments in the decendants body. see (Mungo, supra at 1153-55) Again, this was also dismissed as harmless, despite the fact that I, nor my lawyer, never knew anything about Dr. Garceau status until 4 years after trial.

** CONCLUSION **

I'm humbly seeking assistance in obtaining my freedom. All assistance is welcome (e.g., lawyers, law students, paralegal's, investigative work, media coverage, etc.). Finally, it is respectfully requested in the alternative, that if you are unable to aid me, please forward my story to someone whom you believe can aid, guide, or assist me in this matter. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you (via letter, email) where all comments are welcome.

Sincerely,
Jeremiah Mungo

Write to me at:

Jeremiah Anthony Mungo
#11962-007
USP - Big Sandy
PO Box 2068
Inez, KY 41224

Send Email

Justice Denied
Main Section