HELP NEEDED FOR MY COUSIN WHO HAD BEEN FRAMED BY THE
GOVERNMENT AND IS DOING 40 TO LIFE IN THE STATE PRISON FOR CRIMES
HE HAS NOT COMMITTED. I WAS ARRESTED ON MAY 28, 1982, FOR MORE
DETAILS PLEASE READ BELOW:

RE: People v. Samuel, Indictment No. 2949-82

FACTS OF MY INITIATE ARREST OF ROBBERY

Sgt. Crowe, Officers Dugan, Bruno and Nopolitano all testified on my behalf that I was not with the alleged co-defendants that approached the car of May 28, 1982. Howbeit, the trial court concealed that part of testimonial in its decision ruling on my probably cause issue.

In addition, the trial court altered my arrest and used two Officers Feyh and Colon, who alleged to be around the corner Cooper Street and did not have a clue to what had transpired on Broadway where Sgt. Crowe, Officers Dugan, Bruno and Nopolitano where all positioned.

In fact, none of these police officers (4) above saw any individuals go down Broadway and then turn right on Cooper, nor did they make any transmissions to that effect. No transmission was made what so ever to the effect that a man with gray sweat pants had approached, attempted to enter or was even in close proximity to the black Cadillac (Tr. 2420-2422, 2605, 2606, 2773, 2797, 3208 and 3248).

Officer Colon testified that the fellow the gray pants went towards an abandoned building (Tr. 2674, 2675). Feyh made a transmission over the radio immediately after he saw the two run past his car. He described only the person and the clothing of the one who continued up Cooper, however, and not the one who went into the abandoned building (Tr. 2601). At that time neither Feyh nor Colon chased the individual who had gone into the abandoned building, but instead went around the corner onto Broadway after hearing shots fired (Tr. 2516, 2676). It was not until some fifteen to twenty minutes later that Feyh and Colon returned to that building on Cooper. During that time interval Feyh did not tell any fellow officers that he thought he saw a suspect run into a building, although he had ample opportunity to do so (Tr. 2605, 2518, 2520 and 2541). At no time did Feyh make any transmission or request any other officer to go in and search that building or to apprehend that individual (Tr. 2605). No memo book entry was made at any time as to the fact that an individual had gone into that building (Tr. 2606).

Not having received any received radio transmissions that a male with gray pants had approached or attempted to enter the black Cadillac on Broadway and not having been informed by Officer Bruno of the same (after having spoken to him about the shots fired), Feyh and Colon nonetheless eventually returned to the building where they claim they saw the man with the gray pants run. Question present, why did the trial court and the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Samuel v. Mann, 13 F. 522 (2nd Cir. 1993) excluded pertinent testimonial from its decision. And the Appellate Division, Second Department and the Court of Appeals refused to address the merits of my case. Nevertheless, the appellate court did addressed the merits of one of the alleged co-defendant's (People v. Martin, 139 A.D. 2d 559, 527 N.Y.S. 2d 91, (2d Dep't 1988), 1v. denied, 72 N.Y. 2d 862, 532 N.Y.S. 2d 512 (1988).

In retrospect, Martin, supra, conviction was reversed because trial counsels argued that the unsigned confession was untrue, fabricated to cover-up unprovoked shooting, and that there was no in-court identification of the alleged co-defendant.

Under Freedom of Information, officer Edward J. Wilton, asserted that he is the arresting officer and police reports show no property taken from me. In an attempt to cover-up the false arrest and the fact that no probably cause existed for my arrest, the police department passed off my arrest to officers Feyh and Colon. It should also be noted that no Miranda warning ever given to me.

On May 28, 1982, petitioner and four other persons alleged entered the Patio Gardens parking garage at 590 Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. Seven men, including the parking attendant, were in the garage at the time. Petitioner and four accomplices allegedly drew guns and robbed the seven men of money and jewelry after forcing them to lie down and strip. The gunmen beat the parking attendant with a blackjack and fled the scene after stealing a black Cadillac automobile. See People v. Samuels, 109 A.D. 2d 900, 901, 486 N.Y.S. 2d 791 (2d Dep't 1985).

The New York State Court of Appeal denied my application for leave to appeal. See People v. Samuels, 65 N.Y. 2d 700 (1985) (Kaye, J.).

During the course of trial, seven victims came and not one of the victims identified me as a participant in the robbery. When the misidentification occurred, the Brooklyn D.A. tried to claim that I covered my face, but the court clarified that claim as being baseless by asserting the following:

When the misidentification occurred, the Court explained the circumstances as follows:

THE COURT: Let the record show that the witness viewed a lineup -- viewed a picture of a lineup that he says he saw at the precinct and picked out -- mentioned that he had picked out Number 2 and in court identified Robert Williams rather than Robert Samuels. (Tr. 2105)

The police fabricated an unsigned confession and attributed it to me, the confession itself was in the weakest possible form, based entirely on the claim of detectives Martino, Navarra and Gomez that the confession was made. It was not videotaped, and I did not sign either notes which supposedly were made contemporaneously by detective Martino. (Gomez, Narrarra, Tr. 2808-2810,
2814-2815, Martino, Tr. 2893-2895). And when I was asked to videotape to make a statement, I declined, requesting assistance of counsel (A.D.A. Hochberger, Tr. 3029).

I also recall that no lineup was ever conducted in my case, which led up to the other alleged crimes. I have an Article 78 pending for almost three (3) years.

My 440.10 motion is currently pending before Honorable Zweible, R.A.J., who happen to transfer my motion to Honorable L. Priscilla Hall; because I had precluded the D.A. from filing opposition since no extension was issued. And because the Brooklyn, D.A. failed to file timely. The motion is based on Crawford v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 1354 and whether the new rule should be applied retroactively pursuant to Teage v. Lane, under Teague's second exception, it's evident that my guilt or innocence has never been determined based on the facts of my case.

IN A SEPARATE CASE / INDICTMENT NO. 55168/83

In a separate case, murder conviction, I initially filed a F.O.I.L. request, which was denied and later reconsidered by the Nassau County D.A.'s Office.

Upon filing an Article 78 Petition, which I had prevailed, I later discovered that the D.A. of Nassau used fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining my conviction. The crime scene photos reveals that police officer Thomas T. Vogt, shield number 1815, Crime Scene Search Unit, that Vogt testified falsely about witnessing the deceased at the crime scene. When in fact, the victim died somewhere else.

Proof that the Nassau County D.A.'s Office knew that they had procured my conviction by using fraud and misrepresentation, is supported by their failure to turnover these same trial exhibits to my appellate counsel prior to him briefing my direct appeal, Second Department. The prosecution's office did this despite the fact that my appellate counsel requested was pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. This was an additional denial of my due process rights, because it deprived me of an adequate appeal. This also revealed by inference that the prosecution's action (presenting false evidence) during the trial was premeditated, and that they were attempting to conceal it during the direct appeal.

I filed a 440.10 motion before the Nassau Court, and the case was assigned to Judge Gerald S. Carter, who later recused himself from the case. The new assignment was given to Judge Jeffery S. Brown, who failed to issue an evidentiary hearing based upon newly discovered evidence and facts. The same claim is currently pending before Honorable Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J., District Court, Central Islip, New York 11722.

RE: Robert Samuel v. James Conway, Superintendent, C-V- 04-4114

In the initial arrest, a photo was discovered at one of the alleged co-defendant's house which led the government to frame me un Ind. No. 2949/82, for the crimes on Long Island. The photo was from a "Dice Game". I pleaded guilty in the Long Island cases because the guards in the county jail kept physical abusing me and the alleged co-defendants and this information is all a part of the court record.

Under Ind. No. 55168-83, my attorney and the police placed me in a lineup with a sweater on while everyone else wore a short sleeve T-shirt, under the murder conviction. See Exhibit A.

IF ANY ASSISTANCE IS AVAILABLE PLEASE CONTACT ME, THANK YOU.

Also, (Tr. stands for trial transcripts).

Write to me at:

Robert Earl Samuel
#82B2253
Attica Correctional Facility
Box 149
Attica, NY 14011-0149

Send Email

View
Additional Exhibits
in this Case

Justice Denied
Main Section