History Of Appellate Issues

After being convicted of first degree murder and attempted murder, I was given Post Verdict Motions Hearings. At these hearings, we were allowed before sentencing to raise issues in the hope of a new trial. These hearings were held before my trial Judge Sabo, and to me, I knew these hearings were going no where! However, I had to preserve some issues now in order to raise them later. I will show some of the issues I raised that I felt was most important to me; although, there were more as you will see.

Failure To Call Mrs. Lane Due To Trial Counsel’s Conflict Of Interest

I will quote some actual testimony of Ronald Morrison at my Post Verdict Motion hearing. I was then represented by new counsel, William Cannon, at this hearing. Some excerpts from the hearing as follows:

Q. You actually represented Mr. Lane, oh years before the trial of this matter?

A. Correct.

Q. And, based on your conversation before the start of the hearing, I understand that you had gained an acquittal for Mr. Lane?

A. Correct.

Q. At that time, is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. You were never paid?

A. I was never paid.

Q. Yes, that’s why you remember:

A. Yes.

A. I believe it was nothing more than I knew Mr. Lane for a few years, and we had various run-ins, first, on a personal basis as to non payment of my fee.

Q. That’s the reason why you did not seek to have her, Mrs. Lane, interviewed or to have her subpoenaed for trial because of personal conflict with her?

A. That was one. There was some attempt by going through the neighborhood for example

Q. I think you are saying that there was a conflict between utilizing Mr. Green and Mr. Lane at the same time because Mr. Green would say that Mr. Lane was elsewhere and Mrs. Lane would say that her son was asleep?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay! So you felt as though you had to make a choice between one of five viable options and you chose to go with Mr. Green?

A. Yes, he was a more cooperative witness for the defense.

Another issue that was raised:

Trial Counsel’s Failure To Present Teech Burton As An Alibi Witness

This issue was also denied and the appellate courts affirmed on this issue. I will quote the bottom line on this issue.

Consequently, if Ms. Burton had testified at trial, her testimony would have merely repeated the testimony given by the Petitioner’s three alibi witnesses. This witness proposed testimony regarding the sign in book would have been neither available, nor admissible, nor material. Thus her testimony would have added nothing new to Petitioner’s alibi defense nor proved helpful to his defense. Consequently, counsel’s failure to call her to the stand does not render his assistance ineffective.

The Trial Court Erred When It Rejected Defense Counsel’s Motion To Re-open Cross Examination Of Homer Lane.

Homer Lane was being questioned by Michael Jones’s lawyer (Robert Moser) about when he reported to police; when he, Homer Lane, spoke out that he did not know who shot Laws, Jr., Transcript: 254-55.

Q. The day when you finally decided, after the shooting, to go to the police did you call the deceased’s father and say I want to confess what I saw?

A. No! I had already told him the day before I got shot at and I think that is what they were mad at when they saw me with him. One of the Woods Brothers saw me with him. I think that is what started everything.

Q. You are saying before you got shot at?

A. No! I am saying this. I would have told his father first before I would have thought about going to the police. I would have never gone to the police unless they shot at me and that is why I went to the police.

Q. Did you say you told his father before you got shot at who had killed the son?

A. I told him I had an ideal. I didn’t know for sure. He saw me talking to him.

Q. Didn’t his father come to you and say let us go to the police:

A. He suggested to me, but I didn’t want to. I wasn’t going.

Mr. Moser: No further questions.
Mr. Morrison: May I have another question?
Mr. Boland: Objection you honor.
The Court: If there are not any more re-directs, there are not any more questions.
Mr. Morrison, if the court pleases may we see each other?

Side bar conference as follow:

Mr. Morrison, if the court pleases with all due respect to the rules of procedure. There is discretionary with the court to allow me to re-open my cross examination based solely on what this witness just testified: On the day before the shooting he told the father he had an ideal; he wasn’t sure who did the homicide.

Mr. Boland: That is on the record.

The Court: Okay, he said it. Whatever is there is there. We will take a five minute recess.

(Lane actually admitted he did not know who killed Chester Laws, Jr.)

Did The Jury Miss This? Why Didn’t Morrison Mention This In His Closing Argument?

(Sold Me Out!)

On December 14, 1983, after all my Post Verdict Motions over the last year, Judge Sabo rejected all my issues. He asked me, “What did I have to say before sentencing?” I said, “The truth will eventually come out.” I said something else that I cannot remember now. Judge Sabo sentenced me to life plus 12 1/2 to 25 years.

I then presented these issues in 1984 with my new court appointed counsel to the PA Superior Court. You can read this in the law books at 636,501 A.2d 294 1985 (this was denied).

On June 21, 1986, the PA Supreme Court granted me allocatur only to affirm later without opinion on May 22, 1987. See Com V. Woods, 514 Pa. 448, 5256 A.2d 1208 (1987).

In July, 1986, Homer Lane walked in my attorney’s office (at that time Geremy Gelb) and signed a sworn affidavit admitting he lied at court about witnessing the shooting of Chester Laws, Jr.

On or about January 4, 1988, I filed a petition under the Commonwealth’s Post Conviction Hearing Act. The following issues were raised:

1. Ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object to the alibi jury instruction.
2. Newly discovered evidence in the form of an affidavit of Homer Lane recanting his trial testimony. He finally admitted that he lied at trial.

An evidentiary hearing was held before Judge Sabo and eventually denied, not surprising. I appealed to the PA Superior Court Com V. Woods, 575 A.2d 601 (1990) I was denied. All my appeals were eventually denied.

Video Tape Sworn Declarations

In 1990, Homer Lane met with my new lawyer, Mitchel Struttin, and made a video tape, a sworn declaration, that he lied at trial when he alleged that he witnessed me shoot Chester Laws, Jr. The appellate courts rejected my appeal. Something that did not surprise me anymore! The courts don’t trust recanted statements, not unless it is for them. Justice and fairness does not mean much in this case. I’m still trying to find that evidence that will free me. My family is supporting me by keeping my case alive in the neighborhood.

Around May 20, 1991, I received a certified letter from my sister Regina who has grown to be very God Conscious and constantly reminded me to keep the faith, which I was doing anyway. She would tell me about Dan Cuellar, an investigative journalist who was on the case.

Mr. Quellar walked the neighborhood and interviewed different people on the 1500 block of Felton Street and on Lansdowne Avenue from 60th to Felton Street. However, little was gained aside from some statements that were made that were not admissible in court. One statement was made by Adam Green who never showed up for my trial. He explained how Chester Laws, Sr., threatened him not to go to trial, and he explained some of Homer Lane’s motives for blaming the killing of Chester Laws, Jr. on me! See complete video tape for detailed information.
I was not in a position to help at all in this investigation. We lacked good information to direct Mr. Quellar to go on. This hindered my plight with Mr. Quellar in pursuit of FREEDOM!

Mr. Quallar got involved with this case. I found out later by request of a friend of my brother, Larnell. Mr. Quellar directed his energies to Homer Lane because Homer Lane knew something and it was much more than what I knew.

Homer Lane visited his studio and discussed my case and how he lied on me. Eventually, they setup a video taping date. On this tape, Homer Lane admitted he lied at trial, and admitted how he got his deal and other revealing things on how he collaborated with the D. A. to convict me before a jury. Mr. Quellar said this was not enough because Homer Lane could not be trusted, which is a true statement!

Mr. Quellar said he needed something more to support this and without more he would have to drop the case. My family and I had nothing to offer. Mr. Quellar even suggested to me if I knew who did this to let him know. I knew nothing and had nothing to offer, but I needed his help and resources to find more evidence that could vindicate me. I know there is someone or thing out there. I just don’t know where.

This was hard on my family and myself considering we had some real help after all these years and by that time I had already been incarcerated nine (9) years. Mr. Quellar said whenever we came up with something knew or something to support that Homer Lane lied give him a call or write him; but for now, he had to back off the case because we needed more evidence to support Homer Lane Lied. My heart was heavy as well as my family’s hearts. We really felt that we had some strong momentum. Things were not working for us, but faith kept us together and strong enough to carry on the fight. We would move on without Mr. Quellar. My fight is for life and quitting is not an option!

There was nothing new for the next five (5) years.

New Exculpatory Evidence

At Huntingdon, I encountered some friends. I was re-united with my co-defendant Michael Jones. I had not seen him in 15 years or more. This was a reunion for us and our families would visit together. I was placed on the same block as Mike but different cells. We talked about new business, current affairs, and of course, old business. My main concern was what did his lawyer send him after our convictions when we became separated? Of course, Mike gave me all he had and together we went over his material. I did not have much considering Ronald Morrison never gave me much. While reviewing his police reports, I saw statements made by Brian Ellison, Omar Ancrum, and two (2) other statements made by Homer Lane along with another police note quoting Detective Rogers stated that a Mr. Hill called and said that he saw a black male running with a gun in his hand from Felton Street into Media Street after he heard a shot. Now the only statement I had of Homer Lane was dated May 16, 1982. I never heard of these statements up to this point! After reading them, I saw how bad Ronald Morrison sold me out!

Homer Lane was caught in lies in these statements he made. He tried to put Brian Ellison and Omar Ancrum on the scene at the time of the shooting. My mind was in shock! It was incredulous reading these statements and to be sure of what I was reading I asked Mike to read them again and compare them. Sure enough, he came up with the same conclusion. These statements proved what we already knew. Homer Lane lied and these statements should have been used at trial.

On May 19, 1982, Homer Lane made a statement that Omar Ancrum was out on the block at the time of the shooting of Chester Laws, Jr, near 1545 and after I allegedly shot Laws, Jr., I ran in the direction of Omar Ancrum.

Omar Ancrum made a statement on May 16, 1982, the very night of the shooting. His statement is a follows:

Q. Do you know the circumstances of his death?

A. Ancrum gave an extensive answer. I will shorten it to what is most pertinent. “Carmen Woods came by with his brother, Allen. They were walking west on Lansdowne Avenue and Carmen spoke to us as he went by. He disappeared at 60th and Lansdowne Avenue. About five (5) minutes later
Carmen came riding by going east on Lansdowne Avenue in a blue car. He yelled out the window to us as he went by. About two (2) minutes later, Chet started walking west on Lansdowne Avenue, and I watched him all the way up to 62nd Street.

Q. How long after you last seen Chet walking west on Lansdowne Avenue?

A. About 30 to 35 minutes.

Q. Prior to entering Felton Street, did you see anyone running from this street?

A. No! Me and Brian Ellison came around the corner and walked into Felton Street. I saw this car in the middle of the street with flashes on. When we got up to the car, I saw this guy laying in the street and thought it was a drunk. The guy standing by the car asked me if I knew who he was. I walked over and looked at his face, and I said, that’s Chet!

Mr Ancrum is also asked later do you know the names of any of the people who made up this crowd. The crowd came out only after Ellison & Ancrum came on the block and found Chester Laws, Jr. He names some neighbors but does not name Homer Lane as one being out there, see his complete statement.

Now on May 16, 1982, Brian Ellison was also interviewed the same morning and he confirmed what Omar Ancrum said. He provides more detail on when they left Stacey’s Bar and his route up to how he entered Felton Street and found the body, as follows: We had all been outside Stacey’s Bar at Redfield and Lansdowne Avenue. Chester left to go home about 7-8 minutes before me and Omar. He walked west on Lansdowne. When we left, we walked south on Redfield Street to Media Street then west to Felton Street. That’s when we found him when we were turning up Felton Street.

Detective Twyman would re-interview Homer Lane because it was obvious he was lying! On May 29, 1982, Homer Lane was asked about his where about prior to the shooting of Chester Laws, Jr. He gave an extensive statement confirming what he said before on May 19, 1982.

Dectective Twyman and Lowery were over seeing most of this investigation, and I am sure they had to be scratching there head wondering why was Homer Lane lying. I would only think that this was the work of Chester Laws, Sr. These investigating detectives were willing to carry on with this sharade because Omar Ancrum and Brian Ellison were together that night and Brian Ellison Lives at 1545 not Ancrum. Unlike what Homer Lane thought or said. Neither of them acknowleged Homer Lane being out there on the block that night after the shooting when the neighbors were out, nor do Ellison and Ancrum say they were on the block prior to the shooting! They say Chet left the 7 or 8 minutes before they left. Ancrum went as far as to say that he watched from 60th Street as Laws, Jr., walked from them to 62nd and Lansdowne Avenue. This is important considering homer Lane tried to put them on the block at the time of the shooting of Chester Laws, Jr., in his statement.

Homer Lane was not making sense! These detective called Brian Ellison back in on May 30, 1982 for a re-interview and he confirmed his prior statement. At this point, these detectives knew Homer Lane was lying and he could not get the lie right, by putting people on the scene of the shooting. When the people themselves made statements indicating they were else where at the time of the shooting of Chester Laws, Jr.

It was clear Homer Lane did not know Ancrum and Ellison made statements on May 16, 1982. What little info he was briefed on was unclear to him, so he went on with his own story! I really felt I found the evidence that was missing from my defense and now I could prove Homer Lane lied. I even had a police notation indicating some one else was leaving the scene with a gun in there hand running toward Media from Felton and jumped in a car on Media Street. Homer Lane alleged he watched me run toward Lansdowne Avenue after shooting Chester Laws, Jr.

My question is did my trial lawyer have all this exculpatory evidence and why didn’t he use; it or did he even know about this material? One thing is for sure and that is a jury should have heard it.

I called Geremy Gelb. He was an old friend and adviser to me through out the years.. I explained to him what I found and he asked me to send him a copy of the statements. He informed me that he could not represent me on this because he once handled my case in the past and there would cause a conflict of interest. He told me if what I had is good that he would speak to a lawyer on my behalf, a friend of his. I explained that I did not have much money so he said he would talk to his friend to be reasonable. Within a week time, he agreed with me that this needed to be heard and would set me up with Norris Gelman. I once hired him and had my money returned because he never got to my case after a year. He was a hot list lawyer and he was taking much for his personality. However, he was definitely one of the best appellate lawyers in Philadelphia.

He would now present my issues to the Post Conviction Hearing Act.

Norris Gelman filed my appeal to the Post Conviction Hearing Act and it was so unfortunately that I had to go before judge Sabo. He was my trial judge. He was handling my appeals throughout the years. He was a retired judge. However, retired judges were helping with the case overload that City Hall was experiencing throughout the years due to the boom in crime.

This was not good news for me to know my appeal would go back before Sabo, again! His decisions were to me a foregone conclusion. You were denied before you went to court for the appeal.

Norris Gelman told me not to expect any relief from Sabo or the state courts for that matter. We would take this to the federal courts if necessary. We, definitely, had to exhaust this issue in the state courts before we went to the federal court. Our main issue was innocence should overcome any time Barr.

Norris Gelman eventually submitted my appeal; and on 10/31/96, Norris Gelman had a status hearing scheduled to go before Sabo. I was not present at this hearing in court room 200 at City Hall.

After this status hearing and upon Sabo's review of my appellate issues, I awaited Sabo's response. On January 31, 1997, Sabo sent my lawyer a memorandum time barring my issues.

The case Judge Sabo cited to deny my appeal is as follows:

You have filed prior PCHA/PCRA petitions, your new petition does not meet the requirements set forth in Com v. Lawson, 519 Pa Super 504, 549 A.2d 107 (1998) and Com v. Blackwell, 384 Pa Super 251-558 A.2d 107 (1998) that the allegations of error have resulted in the conviction or affirmance of an innocent individual or that there has been a miscarriage of justice.

I only came into these statements in 1995, when I was re-united with my co-defendant Michael Jones who I had not seen in over 15 yrs.

By all means necessary Sabo would deny my appeal, and flip what we were saying in my appeal. Totally taking what we said about Omar Ancrum & Brian Ellison out of context. He went on to say "Even though there are same inconsistencies between Omar Ancrum’s police statement and Homer Lane's trial testimony, they are of a minor nature and certainly do not present grounds warranting a new trial" (page 6. of Sabo's opinion), Sabo's complete Opinion will be included in this web site! I took my appeal to the PA Superior Court on September 29, 1997, and it was denied on May 1, 1998. I took my appeal to the PA. Supreme Court on May 26, 1998, and it was denied on November 5, 1998 without opinion.

The PA Superior Court used Sabo's deliberate twisted Opinion (regarding the Ancrum & Ellison statements) to help justify their ruling, because generally these courts defer to the trial judge or the judge who reviewed the Post Conviction Hearing.

My argument was the same on each level.

I then went to the United States Federal Court for the Third Circuit of PA.

Norris Gelman delayed for whatever reason in putting my appeal into the federal courts; and the argument was raised against me double time regarding the time Barr because Norris Gelman took so long! Something he and I had discussed in a heated manner.

We submitted our appeal on October 22, 1999, and we were going in on the issue of innocence! Why we should overcome the time Barr issue.

I had the same federal judge, John Padova and Magistrate M. Faith Angell. They both over saw my habeas appeal in 93 to no avail. She shot all my issues down without a hearing. Padova agreed with her then as well as now.

Now my dilemma was that I had to seek permission to just file a successive/second Habeas Corpus, and I had to show a primie facial showing of innocence to be granted this.

On 0ctober 22, 1999, I submitted a petition for consideration for a second Habeas Corpus, and, this went before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, within five (5) months on April 12, 2000, the Court of Appeals granted me this permission and order my case to go back before Magistrate M. Faith Angell for a report and recommendation.

Magistrate Angell ordered my body to be at the hearing scheduled for October 2, 2001 for a status hearing, at this hearing my family and friends were there and the DA and my lawyer argued before the judge. All the judge wanted to know was why I should overcome the time bar? The actual issue of Brian Ellison & Omar Ancrum was not addressed. The DA said little to nothing and within no time this hearing was over.

On October 9, 2001, the Magistrate came back with her report and recommendation and it was all against me, I will have the whole report laid out on this site!

We appealed within a matter of days to judge Padova and he agree with the report and recommendation and enter his Memorandum on November 9th 2001. His Memorandum will be included in this.

We then present our argument to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals asking for a Certificate of Appeal ability (COA) only to be denied on November 22, 2002.

My appeals on the Ellison & Ancrum statements failed in these courts (state & federal) in spite of the fact they show innocence. There was no future of justice in this unjust system!

My family’s faith was shaken, but we understand that ALLAH has a plan for everything!

I was without an appeal, just existing in these death camps often looking at Ellison & Ancrum statements. After some years, I tried to find out who was the drunk person on the block when Ellison and Ancrum came on the block and was asked by this drunk person if they knew who the guy was laying on the street? And whose car was it double parked at the scene of the shooting that Ellison and Ancrum refer to in their statements? There still exist many questions and few people to answer them.

My family questioned people and put fliers out on Felton Street and in the neighborhood to inquire who this Mr. Hill that lived in the area around May 1982 could have been. They put fliers out with this information hoping someone would call back and direct us to them. We don't have an official statement from Mr. Hill and this had to be a deliberate action because when someone makes statements like he did the investigating police or detectives would rush to get them to sign off on it. Why not in this case? The investigating detectives dropped the ball on this investigation and just settled on me without any real evidence. When there is real evidence that someone else could have done this. This needs to be addressed. This is a miscarriage of justice.

Praise is to ALLAH as a result of my family efforts something came up that was aside from what we were looking for.

NEW EVIDENCE

There was a witness that lives across the street from the shooting, who heard the shot on May 16, Appx 2:AM. He stated that he never saw the actual shooting. However, after he heard the shooting, he looked from his porch and saw a short dark skin male run from the scene! He knew me from the neighborhood and he said this guy definitely was not me. He added that this guy ran down Felton into Media Street. This witness never got involved with my trial nor did he know I was charged with this murder.

Will the courts be fair and administer justice where there exist an injustice and actual innocence? Time will only tell. We hope to be there to see this new evidence heard before a fair judge.

We the Woods family welcome any ideals and support to help our brother out of this unjust incarceration.