Why Wilson Rivera is Clearly an Innocent Man Who's Wrongfully Imprisoned

1. There were no eyewitness testimony identifying Wilson as one of the perpetrators of the crime. The sole eyewitness for the prosecutor testified that the perpetrator was 5'3"-5'5" and sounded white, wearing a poncho and a dark ski mask. Wilson is 5'10" with an accent.
2. Detroit Police failed to brush for fingerprints at the scene, although 5-6 shell casings were recovered and there was evidence that the perpetrator had touched the door jamb of the front door before forcing it open and gaining entrance to the house.
3. No murder weapon was ever recovered
4. Wilson never implicated himself. On the contrary, Wilson's statement to the police contained his whereabouts during the hours that the crime was taking place.
5. Although various caliber ammunition was found where Wilson was arrested, none matched the caliber of the weapon used to commit the offense.
6. Although Wilson was placed under arrest a few hours after the homicides, he was never administered a gun-residue test, however, one was administered to the sole eyewitness.
7. The perpetrator left a clear shoe-print at the scene of the crime, but Detroit Police failed to look for a match once Wilson was arrested at home.

Main Case Focuses

Wilson's case is substantiated by verified and competent evidence supporting the following facts: 

1. The Detroit Police suborned perjury
2. The prosecutor indulged in prosecutorial misconduct, which deprived Wilson of a fair trial
3. Detroit Police indulged in multiple acts of misconduct in order to ensure the charges against Wilson would stick
4. Defense counsel and appellate counsel proved ineffective and failed to protect Wilson's due process rights accorded to him under the United States and Michigan Constitution

Perjured Testimony

The trial of Wilson hinged completely on the perjured testimony of one person, Celedonio Mata. Mr. Mata worked at a pizza establishment and was an associate of Wilson's in 1993. On September 12, 1993, Mr. Mata set up a robbery by informing Wilson and Ragaie (Roger) Murfik (Wilson's co-defendant) with the address of the final pizza delivery. Although Mr. Mata denies this fact, on September 15, 1993, hours after the armed robbery took place, the Detroit Police began searching for Mr. Mata and Mr. Murfik for questioning.

The Detroit Police arrived at an apartment in the early morning hours of September 15, 1993, and sought entry. According to the police testimony, they heard running and one of the officers headed toward the back of the apartment building. Once there, Officer Gerald Packard observed through a bedroom window Mr. Celedonio Mata placing numerous weapons, and what was later identified as cocaine and marijuana, into a dresser drawer. During questioning the ownership of these items, it was alleged by the Detroit Police that Mr. Mata divulged some information concerning the homicides. According to trial testimony by Officer Gerald Packard, Mr. Mata informed him that Wilson had informed him (Mr. Mata) that he intended to shoot the victims because, according to Mr. Mata, the victim had witnessed the armed robbery a few days earlier and had informed the police about Wilson and Roger's involvement. At this time, according to trial testimony, Mr. Mata was placed under arrest for the murders, as well as the guns and drugs found in the apartment. Once Mr. Mata was transferred to 1300 Beaubien street, homicide division, he was further questioned and submitted a signed statement as to the alleged conversation and motive. During his trial testimony however, Mr. Mata denied ever placing any drugs and guns into the dresser drawer or ever having possession of those items. Mr. Mata further denied ever receiving any deals of immunity for the guns and drugs. Additionally, and even more convincing that Mr. Mata received favors from the Detroit Police and the Wayne County's Prosecutor's office, Mr. Mata had been placed on 4 years of probation for an incident in 1991 and although only 2 years of probation had passed, he was never charged with violation of probation for the guns and drugs he was arrested for. Again, Mr. Mata persisted that he was never given any deals for his perjured testimony. To date, Mr. Mata has never been tried for any guns, drugs, or violation of probation. However, according to recently discovered information, Mr. Mata's probation was discontinued in November of 1993, ON THE SAME DAY WILSON WAS REMANDED FOR TRIAL FOR THE HOMICIDES. We must ask, how can a person who has been placed on 4 years of probation in 1991, arrested for guns and drugs 2 years later in 1993, only 2 years into his probation period, and have his probation discontinued on the same day Wilson is remanded for trial?

Prosecutorial Misconduct

-- PROSECUTOR WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE (POLYGRAPH) --

Years after Wilson's 1994 conviction, he received a letter containing several police documents. Inside these documents was found the results of a polygraph examination. Unbeknownst to Wilson, in October of 1993, nearly three weeks after the offense was committed, Detroit Police administered a polygraph test to another person of interest. After responding to some pertinent questions, the polygraph examiner determined that the subject was being deceptive. In other words, the suspect had failed the polygraph examination. The object of administering a pre-investigative polygraph examination is to either exclude potential suspects or further investigate them. In Wilson's case the former took place. Although the suspect failed the examination there was no further investigation. Why? It is interesting to note, however, that years after Wilson's wrongful conviction, this same suspect was charged by the Federal Government with the same offense Wilson was found guilty of.

Police Misconduct

-- Wilson's Past With The Detroit Police --

In 1991, Wilson was a 16 year old trouble youth who, as many youths his age, in the mid-late 1980's was a member of a local street gang in Southwest Detroit. Wilson's history led him to the cross hairs of the Detroit Police. In the afternoon of March 1991, Wilson confronted by an off duty Police Officer who was on his way to work at the 4th precinct in Southwest Detroit. According to the officer, while he was pumping gas at the local gas station he observed Wilson firing a weapon. When he confronted Wilson, Wilson fired his weapon in the direction of the officer. Wilson was eventually arrested the following day. The prosecutor's office was seeking to bind Wilson over as an adult under attempted murder charges. However, during the following months Wilson agreed to plead guilty and was eventually committed to the State of Michigan spending nearly 2 years at the Maxey Boys Training School. In 1993, and after obtaining his GED, driver's license, and having an exemplary record of conduct while at the Training School, Wilson was released to the care of his mother. Unfortunately for Wilson, he didn't consider the consequences of living back in the neighborhood where a large police presence was the norm and not the exception. With this large police presence, it was inevitable that Wilson would soon have to confront the same officer whom he shot at a few years earlier as a juvenile and other officers who still held a grudge against Wilson for the events that took place in 1991. Once the DPD became aware of Wilson's release, he was constantly harassed and arrested for minor infractions alleged by the DPD. Wilson states that some of the alleged infractions used by the DPD were disorderly conduct and loitering. As one officer told Wilson, "if we get you off the streets for 24 hours at a time, we don't have to worry about you". 

These false arrests were a common practice in Southwest Detroit. Youths were arrested, sent to Headquarters, prints ran, and then released after paying a $50 fine. The $50 fines were almost always returned when the charges were dismissed because the arresting officers would fail to show up for court proceedings. When these false arrests were not sufficient, Wilson suffered physical and mental intimidation by the Detroit Police. Consequently, Wilson felt safer traveling through Southwest Detroit driving in the daytime hours where traffic abound and where he wouldn't stand out or become an easy target for the Detroit Police. Later in 1993, after being shot in the hand and unable to return to obtain a job, Wilson returned to the life of crime. This led to the September 12, 1993 armed robbery. 

At this point, it is imperative that we reiterate several facts in Wilson's case which will help elucidate his claims of police misconduct:

There were no eyewitness testimony identifying Wilson as one of the perpetrators of the crime. As a matter of fact, the sole eyewitness for the prosecutor testified that the perpetrator was 5'3"-5'5" and sounded white, wearing a poncho and a dark ski mask. Wilson is 5'10" with an accent.

1. Detroit Police failed to brush for fingerprints at the scene, although 5-6 shell casings were recovered and there was evidence that the perpetrator had touched the door jamb of the front door before forcing it open and gaining entrance to the house.
2. No murder weapon was ever recovered
3. Wilson never implicated himself. On the contrary, Wilson's statement to the police contained his whereabouts during the hours that the crime was taking place.
4. Although various caliber ammunition was found where Wilson was arrested, none matched the caliber of the weapon used to commit the offense.
5. Although Wilson was placed under arrest a few hours after the homicides, he was never administered a gun-residue test, however, one was administered to the sole eyewitness.
6. The perpetrator left a clear shoe-print at the scene of the crime, but Detroit Police failed to look for a match once Wilson was arrested at home.

 Lead Detective Goes on Vacation 

-- Instead of Showing up for Wilson's Trial --

Six months prior to Wilson's case, in March of 1994, prosecution witness Armondo Campos testified that he had signed a witness statement that was drafted by the DPD at Headquarters and the he testified falsely during Wilson's preliminary examination at the behest of the DPD. Mr. Campos further testified that he was promised that he would not be violated for breaking the stipulations of his probation and further that if he was to be found guilty for the firearm they would recommend probation. Now, somewhere between the time of Wilson's preliminary examination, Wilson's trial, and Wilson's co-defendant's trial in March of 1994, Mr. Campos found his conscience. While Campos was testifying for the prosecutor, he stated that he perjured himself at the previous court proceedings. However, what is of greater importance in this matter is the fact that he testified that the prosecutor's office had been made aware of his perjured testimony, about the agreement between Mr. Campos and the Officer in Charge of the case, Ms. Carrie Russell. Additionally, the fact that he had on at least ten (10) occasions attempted to contact, via phone, the prosecutor's office to correct his previous testimony and had even went to the prosecutor's office personally. In all efforts made by Mr. Campos to correct his perjured testimony, he was completely ignored by the prosecutor's office. 

Wilson postulates that the fact that the Officer in Charge of his case, Ms. Carrie Russell, decided to go on vacation even though she had foreknowledge of the trial date bears witness to a deliberate attempt to avoid the jury becoming aware about these facts as they were made aware 6 months prior during Wilson's co-defendant's trial. Again, Wilson's jury was deprived of all relevant facts by which to render a well informed decision against him.

Missing Witness Testimony

Mr. Armando Campos had been a prosecution witness since the inception of the case. He testified on behalf of the prosecution at the preliminary examination and the co-defendant's trial. Six months later, when Wilson's trial date arrived, this witness failed to appear. Initially it was the prosecutor's assertion that the witness had been served a subpoena and a return of service was in the investigator's file. However, after holding a due diligence hearing, it was revealed that Mr. Campos had never been served a subpoena and that there was no return of such in the investigator's file. In simple terms, the prosecutor lied about their attempts to locate its own witness. The prosecutor was aware of Wilson's trial date, but they did not begin looking for Mr. Campos until the first day of Wilson's trial. There is no doubt that the failure of the prosecutor to produce Mr. Campos at Wilson's trial was an attempt to avoiding the jury from hearing the following facts:

1. The statement signed by Mr. Campos was not written by him but by the DPD and was given to Mr. Campos in order that he may commit it to memory.
2. Mr. Campos was offered a deal and favors in return for his perjured testimony, as well as Mr. Mata.
3. Mr. Campos attempted, on several occasions, to correct his perjured testimony by phone and in person.
4. Mr. Campos was made promises by the Lead Detective if he testified falsely on behalf of the prosecution.